OFFICIAL REPORT.



The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Londonderry Corporation Bill (by Order), Read a second time, and committed.

STREET ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY VEHICLES.

Address for Return showing the number of accidents resulting in death or personal injury known by the police to have been caused by vehicles in streets, roads, or public places during the year ending the 31st day of December, 1919 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 68, of Session 1919).—[Major Baird.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

MILITARY CLERKS.

Colonel YATE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India by what date the revised rates of pay for the military clerks on the Indian unattached list will be published?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr Herbert Fisher): The Government of India's proposals have been accepted, subject to consideration of certain minor points. It is not possible to fix a date for the publication of the new rates, but my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the announcement will be made by the Government of India without any avoidable delay.

CINEMA FILMS (CENSORSHIP).

Colonel YATE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India what steps have been taken by the Government of India to censor the cinema films shown in India?

Mr. FISHER: Laws have been passed in 1918 and 1919 enabling the Government of India to institute arrangements for the examination and certification of films, for licensing places of exhibition, and for making rules to govern both matters. I am not aware whether the laws have as yet been brought into operation. I shall be glad to supply my hon. and gallant Friend with copies of the Acts if he so desires.

Colonel YATE: It is not copies of the Acts I desire. Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the Government of India are putting those Acts into force?

Mr. FISHER: indicated assent.

PUNJAB DISTURBANCES.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 3.
asked, the Secretary of State for India whether he has seen the reports made by officers of the Central Information Department on the Punjab disturbances; and, if so, will he state whether these reports contain allegations against the local police of participating in the looting, or other conduct likely to make trouble?

Mr. FISHER: My right hon. Friend has not seen the reports of Central Information Department officers on the Punjab disturbances, but the Government of India have informed him that the investigations of that Department show that there is no foundation for statements that the police participated in rioting or looting in the course of the disturbances.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to call for these Reports and inspect them for himself, or enable those who are interested to have a look at them?

Mr. FISHER: I will certainly do so.

RICE.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has now completed his inquiry into the excessive profits being made by the Government of India on the sale of rice to Ceylon and neighbouring British Colonies; and whether he will make a statement on the matter?

Mr. FISHER: The Viceroy will receive to-morrow a deputation from Ceylon, and I expect to receive a telegraphic report of the proceedings within the next few days.
If my hon. Friend will be good enough to put down a question next week, I hope to be in a position to make a statement.

Mr. MYERS: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information to the effect that rice is being withheld from the market by merchants, especially in Bombay; and, if so, what steps are being taken to safeguard the people of India?

Mr. FISHER: I have no information, but I am confident that if supplies are withheld from the market the authorities in India will take suitable action. The lowering of prices is a matter of the closest concern to the Government of India, and it was primarily with this object that they have assumed control of the Burma rice trade.

Mr. TALBOT: 9.
asked the Secretary for India whether it is a fact that the Government of India has fixed the export price of rice at Rs. 1,000 per 100 baskets, viz., 7,500 lbs., for which they pay the producer Rs. 455, charging this price to countries within the British Empire and thereby raising the price by 2¼d. a lb. in this country: and whether he can see his way to reduce this excessive charge in British dominions?

Mr. FISHER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the question asked by the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow. I hope to be able to make a full statement on the subject next week.

SHOLAPUR STRIKE.

Mr. SWAN: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether on 16th February troops and police were called in to disperse a meeting of strikers at Sholapur; whether the troops fired at the crowd when it did not disperse; how many casualties occurred among the native civilian population, men, women, and children; by whose orders were troops called in to disperse the strikers; and whether martial law had been proclaimed?

Mr. FISHER: The Secretary of State has received a short telegraphic report, from which it appears that it became necessary to fire on a mob at Sholapur, on the 16th February, after they had stoned the troops, and that six casualties
(probably deaths) occurred among the mob. The assistance of troops was presumably invoked by the civil authorities under the ordinary law. Martia law was not proclaimed

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why these people went on strike?

Mr. FISHER: It was a strike at a Bombay mill owned by some English firm

COTTOX MILLS (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Captain BAGLEY: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Bombay workers recently demanded a 10-hours' day, 50 per cent. increase of wages, and abolition of child labour under 12 years of age; to what extent, if any, those demands have been conceded; and what is the present wage of cotton mill workers?

Mr. FISHER: I understand that the Bombay workers included among their demands a 10-hours' day and a 50 per cent. increase of wages, but I was not aware that the general body of strikers pressed for an increase in the minimum age of employment of children. As the result of the intervention of the Governor, the 10-hours' day was conceded and a substantial increase of wages given. I have no exact information of the new rates of wages now drawn by various classes of cotton mill operatives, but I will enquire.

Captain BAGLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the condition of these workers is a menace to the standards of living of Lancashire cotton workers who manufacture for the same markets? Will he exercise his influence to secure an improvement in the standard of these workers?

Mr. FISHER: The Governor of Bombay, through his intervention in this dispute, secured a very considerable improvement in the standard of living of the Bombay cotton operatives.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman also understand that our interest in the wages paid to these Indian workers is not due solely to their competition with Lancashire mills?

ASIATICS IN SOUTH AFRICA (COMMISSION).

Mr. BENNETT: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India if it was originally
intended that an Indian delegate should accompany Sir Benjamin Robertson on his mission to South Africa to represent Indian interests before the Commission appointed to inquire into laws dealing with the rights of Asiatics; if that intention has been abandoned; and if he is aware of the dissatisfaction which has been expressed in connection with this matter in the Imperial Legislative Council?

Mr. FISHER: Yes, Sir. To the great disappointment of the Viceroy and the Secretary of State it proved impossible at the last moment to arrange for the coordination with Sir Benjamin Robertson of a non-official Indian gentleman. Neither the South African nor the Indian Government is responsible for this.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why an Indian was prevented from going? Could they not obtain one?

Mr. FISHER: A distinguished non-official Indian was invited to go on this Commission, but at the last moment he found it impossible to go.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

WOMEN (EMPLOYMENT).

Viscount CURZON: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty are now employing any women to carry out the duties formerly discharged by the Women's Royal Naval Service; if so, how many; and in what capacity?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): In reply to my noble Friend's question of 10th December, I explained that at that time 564 ex-members of the Women's Royal Naval Service were employed by the Admiralty. I pointed out that in the great majority of cases the employment was purely temporary, and that, where practicable, ex-service men were being substituted. At the present time the number of ex-W.R.N.S. ratings still retained on a civilian basis is 291, and by the end of this month this number will be reduced to 192. They are mainly engaged as clerks and shorthand-typists. Most of them will not be required for very long.

ADMIRALTY DRIFTERS (FISH SALES).

Viscount CURZON: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the gross amount realised at Lowestoft Naval Base during the War from the sale of fish caught by Admiralty drifters; how the sum has been disposed of; what sums were similarly accumulated at other bases and how disposed of; and how many men of the naval services lost their lives directly through being employed in fishing in Admiralty drifters, as was the case with His Majesty's Drifter "Ocean Fisher"?

Dr. MACNAMARA: As this is a very long answer, I hope the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The gross amount realised at Lowestoft Naval Base during the War from the sale of fish caught on trawlers and drifters on Admiralty Charter was £100,657 11s. 4d. After payment of expenses in connection with the fishing, e.g., agents' fees, cost of fishing gear, ice, dues, etc., the proceeds were divided into equal moieties, one of which was appropriated in aid of Navy Votes, in consideration of the fact that Navy Votes paid for the hire of the vessels, took all risks on them, and bore the expense of their maintenance, including the ordinary wages of the crews. The other moiety was put at the disposal of the Senior Naval Officer in the first place to be expended by him for the benefit of the service in the broadest sense. From 1st January, 1919, however, the expenditure from the Senior Naval Officer's fund was limited to £500 per annum, and when the base was closed the balance remaining was transferred to the Admiralty. The gross sums similarly realised at other naval bases amounted to £225,160 9s. 7d. The total sum so realised has been dealt with in a similar manner as the proceeds of fishing at Lowestoft.

The question of the final disposal of the balance in the hands of the Admiralty is still under consideration, but a sum of £10,000 has already been allocated for the benefit of the Naval Sports Control Board.

Eight men, belonging to the Royal Naval Reserve, lost their lives when His Majesty's Drifter "Ocean Fisher" was sunk. The "Ocean Fisher," when fishing, picked up a mine in her trawl, which exploded and destroyed the ship. Many private fishing vessels were lost in similar
circumstances during the War. I should explain to my hon. and gallant Friend that fishing was not carried out concurrently with mine-sweeping or mine-laying, but vessels of the Auxiliary Patrol, whose duty vas the protection of the private fishing fleets, were sometimes able to fish while on this duty. The fact that fishing was so carried out did not involve these vessels in greater risks than those incurred by the private fishing fleets or presumably other vessels engaged on purely naval work.

The men who were fishing for the bases were volunteers when not engaged on protection duties; they received weekly bonuses in addition to their ordinary pay. They were allowed to go out specially to fish when not engaged on naval work.

No separate record has been kept of any vessels sunk while fishing, and the number of men who lost their lives in these circumstances cannot, therefore, be stated.

PETTY OFFICERS AND MEN.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many petty officers and men who are not volunteers for the post-war Navy are serving with His Majesty's Fleet?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I presume my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to know how-many demobilisable petty officers and men are still serving. The number is 700, of whom the greater part are men of the Trawler Section of the Royal Naval Reserve, employed in care of trawlers and drifters reconditioning.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have any of the men applied for demobilisation; and, if so, why is it necessary at this late hour to keep so many men against their will in the Fleet?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot answer the first part, but certainly if they have applied, every endeavour will be made, consistent with the service on which they are engaged, to meet them.

SHIPS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many ships and vessels are under construction for the Royal Navy, and what is their estimated total cost?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): The ships and vessels now under construction for the Royal Navy are:—

1 battle cruiser,
9 light cruisers,
2 flotilla leaders,
8 torpedo boat destroyers,
13 submarine boats,
2 aircraft carriers,
5 auxiliary vessels.
The majority of these ships were under construction by private firms, and have been transferred to the Royal Dockyards for completion. Definite figures as to their total cost are not yet available, as much of the work has been done on the "time and line" system, and the amounts so payable have not yet been fully ascertained.

FREIGHT (PAYMENT).

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Act of Parliament 59 Geo. III., c. 25, of 8th April, 1819, relating to freight was abrogated by the Order in Council of 26th October, 1914; whether as a fact, since the date of the Order in Council, any freight has been paid to the Admiralty or to any persons such as are referred to in the Act of Parliament; and, if so, whether the Greenwich Hospital Funds have received any and what proportion of it?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Act of 1819 provided for the payment of freight for the conveyance of treasure in His Majesty's ships to be regulated by Order in Council, and Orders in Council regulating the payment of freight were made under the Act from time to time. In 1914 it was considered desirable that this system of payment should be terminated, and the Order in Council then in force was, therefore, annulled. Since the date of that Order in Council freight has been received, amounting to £1,753,150, and of this sum £15,500 has been credited to Greenwich Hospital Funds. The remainder has been taken in charge and used as an Appropriation in Aid of Navy Votes (Vote 11, Z.Z.) Since the date of the Order in Council of 26th October, 1914, freight has not been payable to the persons referred to in the Act, and has not been paid.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Is the officer in command of a vessel carrying freight still liable to law if he loses that freight?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like to have notice of that question.

HOSEMAKERS.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the hosemakers who served an apprenticeship at their trade and are entering Government employ have to pass a trade test as other mechanics; and will he consider giving them the same recognition as regards pay as other mechanics?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The pay of the hosemakers is regulated with regard to the class of work they perform and the degree of skill required. My hon. Friend will recognise it to be reasonable that a workman entered for a particular class of work should undergo a test of his qualifications to perform that work; but this does not afford any ground for placing hosemakers on the same rates of pay as are paid to mechanics of the shipbuilding and engineering trades, which, I may mention, vary for different trades.

APPRENTICES (AGE LIMIT).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the raising of the age limit for apprentices from 14 to 16 bears very hardly on parents whose sons fail to pass the apprentice examination, as outside firms will not accept apprentices beyond the age of 16 unless a very large premium is paid; and if he will consider the possibility of lowering the age limit, and also have the candidates medically examined before instead of after the examination?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The present age limits for candidates for apprenticeships in the Royal Dockyards are minimum 15 and maximum 16 years. My hon. Friend will probably be aware that the lower age limit was advanced from 14 to 15 years a few years ago after careful consideration both by the Admiralty and the Board of Education; one of the considerations being the desire to avoid upsetting the school arrangements of the Education Authorities; and it is not considered desirable to revert to the former lower limit.
As to the medical examination taking place before the educational examination, here again my hon. Friend is doubtless aware that this was formerly the practice, but it was found the present practice would be generally more satisfactory and meet the general convenience. I will have this point, however, looked at again.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the practice in force now is to the detriment of these boys?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I say I will have that question as to whether or not the medical examination shall be made before the educational examination looked into.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman have the age altered?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No. I cannot undertake that.

SURGEON-COMMANDERS.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that some 25 surgeon-commanders (fleet-surgeons) have been placed on the retired list after reaching the age of 55 or completing 30 years' service, and notwithstanding that many of them were called up in Auugust, 1914, and served throughout the War, some as surgeon-captains, their retired pension is only 10 per cent. higher than the rate fixed for surgeon-commanders 40 years ago; and if he will consider the possibility of increasing the pensions of surgeon-commanders called up for service during the War, as has been done in the case of officers in other branches of the service?

Mr. LONG: A number of surgeon-commanders (fleet-surgeons) who retired before the War on reaching the age of 55, or on completing 30 years' service, were called up during the War, and served in the rank they held on the retired list, whether surgeon-captain or surgeon-commander. The exact number could not, however, be ascertained without examining each case separately.
While re-employed, such officers received, in addition to the full pay and allowances of their rank, a bonus of 25 per cent. of their full pay, in lieu of counting the additional time served towards increase of retired pay. Under those conditions of service, they would not
have been entitled to increase of retired pay; but, in accordance with the general arrangement made in the case of retired officers who served in a service capacity during the War, their retired pay was reassessed on the new scale, at the rates applicable to their age and rank at the date they originally retired. In the majority of oases the rate of retired pay was thus raised from £547 10s. to £600 per annum.
The procedure adopted in re-assessing the rates of retired pay of surgeon-commanders called up for service in the War has been exactly the same as that adopted in the case of officers in other branches called up for service.
It is true that the increase of retired pay is proportionately not so great in the case of the surgeon-commanders in question as in the case of certain other ranks, but some dissimilarity in this respect is inherent in any scheme which is framed to put the different branches of the naval service as far as possible on the same basis.

PRIZE MONEY.

Mr. G RATTAN DOYLE: 22.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any of the prize money due to the officers and men of the Navy has yet been paid out; if he will state why the matter is being so long delayed; and if he can state definitely when the money will be paid?

Dr. MACNAMARA: It has frequently been explained that the policy of pooling the net proceeds of prize and distributing them amongst the Fleet as a whole engaged in the sea operations of the War—instead of to the individual captors in each case as in the past—has rendered it impossible so far to commence distribution.
The last paragraph of the answer which the First Lord gave my hon. Friend on the 37th December last explains that, except for the fact that they have not yet received the money, no one entitled to participate will be prejudiced.
It is anticipated that sufficient advance in respect of the proceeds to accrue to the Prize Fund will have been paid into the fund to enable a substantial distribution on account to commence next month. So far as can be judged at the present time, this will not be the final distribution.

Mr. DOYLE: Who is getting the interest in the meantime?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That is not covered by the answer to which I have referred. I will send my hon. Friend an answer that does cover it.

S.S. "TREVEAL" (WRECK).

Viscount CURZON: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the s.s. "Treveal" was wrecked at St. Alban's Head at 9 p.m. on the 9th January, resulting in the loss of thirty-six lives; whether the naval authorities at Portland were informed of the wreck and need for assistance at 9.15 p.m. by wireless from the wreck; whether this information was not conveyed to the lifeboat authorities at Swanage and Weymouth till 9.40 a.m. on the 10th January and not at all to the lifeboat authorities at Poole, with the result that the lifeboat was unable to get to the wreck till 11.30 a.m.; what was the reason for this very grave delay; and whether, in spite of a signal from the ship that she was being abandoned, no action was taken by the coastguard to assist the attempt of the survivors to get ashore?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Board of Trade is holding a formal inquiry into this matter, at which all evidence at the disposal of the Admiralty will be given. My Noble Friend will doubtless agree as to the undesirability of making any statement as to the facts until the inquiry has been completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

GENERAL DENIKIN'S FORCES (BRITISH SUPPLIES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether coals, oil fuel, and stores are being supplied to Russian men-of-war under the command of partizans of General Denikin, K.C.R.; and what is the approximate value of such stores supplied since the Armistice with Germany?

Mr. LONG: No coal or other stores are now being supplied to Russian men-of-war under General Denikin's command, unless for the purpose of enabling any of those ships to assist in the evacuation of women and children.
The approximate value of the stores supplied since the Armistice is:—

Victualling stores
…
…
£10,000


Naval stores (oil fuel)
…
…
10,953


Ordnance stores
…
…
448,418

LABOUR (CONSCRIPTION).

Colonel NEWMAN: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government are able to obtain any authentic first-hand information as to the present condition of affairs in Russia; and whether they have been able to obtain a report on the working of conscription as applied to labour and as introduced by the communist government in a portion of that country?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: With regard to the first part of the question, His Majesty's Government have received a number of first-hand reports from persons who have returned from Russia, and they have, of course, seen those that have appeared in the Press in the form of direct telegrams from Moscow. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, it is with the view of obtaining authentic information as to the conditions in Russia that the Supreme Council of the Allies has recommended to the League of Nations that a Mission should be sent to Russia.

Colonel NEWMAN: May I have an answer to the last part of my question?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer is that no authentic information is at present in the possession of the Government.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: When will the Government be in a position to give any information as to the composition of this Committee of Inquiry?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have no further information I can give my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not the fact that the only people who object to the conscription of labour are those who get their living without work?

Colonel NEWMAN: Can we have the Report published?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must have notice of that question.

CIVIL LIABILITIES.

Captain BAGLEY: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour, if he will state approximately how many applications for assistance are at present under consideration by the Civil Liabilities Committee; how many of these were received as long as 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 months ago, respectively; and what steps have been taken to expedite the work of this Department in accordance with the promise given on 6th November last?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): The number of applications under consideration by the Civil Liabilities Department on the 14th February was 10,572 The number of cases now received from week to week vary from four to five thousand. It will, therefore, be apparent, having regard to the numbers I have given, that the remaining cases of long standing are few and isolated. Though I am not able to give actual figures, it is safe to say that there are very few cases now outstanding beyond two months, and where such cases exist they are explained in nearly every instance by a variety of causes over which the Department have no control In view of the figures I have given, the point put in the last part of the hon. and gallant Member's question does not appear to arise.

Captain BAGLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are two cases in my own constituency which have been hanging on for over eight months; in one case the Local War Pensions Committee could not get an answer to the letters they sent to the Department?

Sir M. BARLOW: Does the hon. Gentleman know, that from all parts of the Kingdom, so far as I am aware, letters are sent to the Civil Liabilities Committee, both from official bodies and private persons, and no answer whatever is returned?

Mr. INSKIP: Would the hon. Gentleman convey to the Minister of Labour the suggestion that greater consideration should be given to the recommendations in these letters so as to avoid delay in the recommendations made by the Local Committees?

Mr. PARKER: I will convey all these remarks to the Minister.

DEMOBILISATION.

GREAT YARMOUTH (BOROUGH COUNCIL).

Sir ARTHUR FELL: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the borough council of Great Yarmouth to the effect that the weekly amount paid to demobilised soldiers and sailors in the borough should be paid to the council, who would provide work of public utility for these men, the amount received being applied towards the wages of the men so employed; and, if such proposal meets with his approval, will steps be taken to carry it into effect?

Mr. PARKER: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to by the hon. Member. The suggestion made is one which has been put before me on several occasions.
Wherever works of public utility are required, it is the part of the local authority to initiate them and to pay in the ordinary way the wages of the men employed. If the principle contained in the resolution were recognised, every local authority which is carrying out public works would ask for a subsidy to the amount of the unemployment donation which would have been drawn by the men whom they employ. I accordingly regret that, however plausible the procedure suggested might be in individual cases, I cannot advise it to be adopted.

Sir A. FELL: But is not the question one, not of benefiting the town or the county only, but also the men themselves?

Mr. PARKER: I will convey the suggestion to my right hon Friend.

EX-SEEVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. TOOTILL: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the feeling that exists in the town of King's Lynn with regard to the action of the King's Lynn Chemical Works employing girls on work that, previous to the War, was carried out by men; whether he is aware of the number of ex-service men who are seeking employment in this district; and whether he can take any action in the matter?

Mr. PARKER: I am causing inquiries to be made, and so soon as these are completed will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

NATIONAL ROLL OF HONOUR.

Mr. CHADWICK: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the advisability of advertising in the local papers the names of local firms whose names are on the King's National Roll in connection with the employment of disabled soldiers and sailors?

Mr. PARKER: As stated in replies to carlier questions on this subject, the King's National Roll will be widely distributed and will be made available at public libraries and other public places throughout the country, in addition to being placed on sale. I shall welcome any publicity which the Press may give to the contents of the Roll, but I do not think the Department could justifiably incur the considerable expense which would be entailed by advertising selections from the Roll in local newspapers.

HOUSING.

SPECULATING SYNDICATES.

Mr. EDWARD WOOD: 30.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the cases of alleged hardship inflicted upon persons in all parts of the country by the sale of their houses at excessive prices to speculating syndicates; whether any action is in contemplation to deal with this matter; and whether he will consider the expediency of instituting a general inquiry into the working of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act and the need for its modification or extension?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): Yes, Sir. A Committee for the purpose suggested has already been set up, and the important point to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers will certainly be considered.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that rents of flats in London have been increased from £l50 to £350, and there has been no public inquiry as to whether these rents are justified or not?

Mr. KILEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state if there is any London representative on the Committee, and, if not, why not?

Dr. ADDISON: I am aware of oven worse cases than those cited by the right
hon. Gentleman. Under the law as it stands at present there is no power to deal with the matter. One of the purposes of this Committee is to consider whether we should seek the necessary powers. With regard to second supplementary question, representation by districts would be an entirely false basis.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that occupants of flats will have to leave unless they pay these greatly increased rents, and will this Committee report in time to remedy this undoubted hardship?

Dr. ADDISON: We were in communication with Lord Salisbury this morning on that very point, and we shall endeavour to deal with the question in time.

NEW HOUSES (LONDON).

Mr. DOYLE: 31.
asked the Minister of Health how many new houses have been erected in London and in the provinces during the last six months in response to the Government's appeal; what is the average cost of each erection: what is the maximum and minimum rent charged; and how many such houses have been, or are being, occupied by demobilised men?

Dr. ADDISON: The last return so far completed was for the month of January. At that date the number of houses and flats which had been completed ready for occupation in England and Wales was 560, of which 309 were in the Metropolitan Police district. In addition, 992 houses were in the final stages. The average cost per house of houses for which tenders had been approved up to the 21st February was £757, exclusive of the cost of land, and of road and sewer making. The highest rental so far approved is 20s. per week, and the lowest 7s., exclusive in each case of rates. As regards the last part of my hon. Friend's question the choice of tenants is a matter for the local authorities, and I have no statistics which would enable me to give a reply on this point.

REGULATIONS.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 32.
asked why the Local Authorities (Assisted Housing Schemes) Regulations, 1919, provide that the estimated annual average loss over a period of years, less the annual produce of 1d. rate, shall be the Exchequer subsidy, notwithstanding the fact that Sec-
tion 7, Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act of 1919, distinctly states that the loss is to be determined on the basis of the estimated annual (not average) loss, subject to a deduction therefrom of a sum not exceeding the estimated annual produce of a rate of 1d.; whether he is aware that the insertion of the word "average" in these Regulations violates the explicit wording of Section 7, Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), of the Act; and whether he will explain how an urban district council can estimate in advance the loss over a period, of years in face of the fact that it is impossible for an urban district council to know, for even one year in advance, what the assessments, rates, rents, outgoings, and other necessary bases of calculation will be, and why the Regulations of 1919 do not provide for an adjustment of the Exchequer subsidy when the loss in any year is such that a local authority has to-contribute more than the produce of a rate of 1d. in the £.

Dr. ADDISON: I am advised that the Regulation to which the hon. Member refers in no way violates the provisions of the Act. Section 7 of the Act provides that the amount of the Exchequer subsidy is to be determined on the basis of the estimated annual loss, in accordance with Regulations to be made. The Regulations provide that periodical estimates of the loss shall be framed and in order that the subsidy may be paid in equal annual sums during the period covered by the estimate (subject only to variations in the proceeds of the 1d. rate) the Regulations provide that the amount to be paid by the Exchequer each year shall be the average annual loss. This will make no difference in the amount paid to the authority during the term of years in question.
I have no reason to believe that, where the schemes have been completed and the houses occupied, urban district councils will find difficulty in estimating the loss likely to be incurred, and until the schemes have been completed the actual loss in excess of the proceeds of the 1d. rate will be paid by the Exchequer.

Mr. SAMUEL: If the urban district councils make mistakes from time to time owing to the difficulty of forecasting over a period of years will the Exchequer subsidy be adjusted so that these councils will not make a loss?

Dr. ADDISON: Of course I cannot make any promise that would amount to a premium on mistakes, but we will do our best to be lenient.

LAND PURCHASE.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 33.
asked whether, in view of the fact that the Inland Revenue Valuation Department has been authorised to negotiate purchases of land on behalf of local authorities where the land is required for housing and land settlement schemes because of the financial responsibilities undertaken by the central departments concerned in connection with the execution of these local schemes, he can see his way to recommend the Treasury to allow the Inland Revenue Valuation Department to render similar assistance to local authorities in connection with the purchase of land for tuberculosis hospitals and sanatoria where a large proportion of both the capital and annual cost is provided by the central departments concerned.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): The case cited by the hon. Member is not on all fours with that of housing and land settlement schemes, and a general extension of the arrangement under which the Land Valuation Department renders assistance in those cases is not possible, but the Ministry of Health will be able to obtain the advice and co-operation of the Valuation Department in any particular case in which they may desire to avail themselves of it before approving a scheme for the erection of a sanatorium.

HOUSES AND FLATS (RENTS).

Mr. LUNN: 35.
asked what is the highest weekly rental so far approved by him for houses and flats, respectively, in respect of houses for the working classes erected under the Housing Act of 1919?

Dr. ADDISON: The highest weekly rentals so far approved are 20s. (exclusive of rates) for houses, and 26s. 11d. (inclusive of rates) for flats.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.

Mr. DONALD: 40.
asked whether it is the intention of the Government to take steps to put an end to the practice being indulged in by a number of people who are in want of houses, namely, that of offering sums of money, ranging from £5 to £50, as bonuses in order to get
possession, as in many instances people who are not in a position to pay a bonus are prevented from getting houses owing to this practice?

Dr. ADDISON: The Rent Restriction Acts, in cases to which they apply make any such bonus irrecoverable from the person who has agreed to pay it, and, if he has in fact paid it, entitled him to deduct it from his rent after getting possession. I am, however, bringing the point to the notice of the Committee which is now sitting to consider the operation of the Acts.

Sir J. D. REES: 46.
asked the Prime Minister how long the Rent Restrictions Act is to remain in force; whether the resulting hardship to owners of paying double the cost of repairs has been duly considered; and whether any increase will be allowed on this account during the currency of this Act?

Dr. ADDISON: I have no doubt that the Committee which has been appointed to consider the operation of the Rent Restriction Acts will bear in mind the points to which my hon. Friend calls attention.

POOR LAW INFIRMARIES.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the present uncertainty as to the future utilisation of existing Poor Law infirmaries is hampering boards of guardians in their endeavours to make adequate provision for the needs of the sick either by way of extension or improvement of their institutions; whether, in the interests of an early reorganisation of health services, he will inform boards of guardians what is the policy of the Ministry with regard to these particular institutions and the use to which they are destined to be put under the new scheme of health services which is contemplated; and whether he is aware that the various health authorities in London and boards of guardians are particularly handicapped in making proper institutional provision for tuberculous persons owing to the failure of the Ministry as yet to carry into effect the declared policy of the Government with regard to the Poor Law.

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, Sir; but the matters referred to by the hon. Member involve questions of local government, and
other subjects of the first importance, that can be dealt with only by legislation; and it is obviously necessary that I should lay proposals before Parliament and obtain its sanction thereto before I could properly adopt towards local bodies the attitude suggested in the question.

Mr. BRIANT: 36.
asked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to co-ordinate the work of the Poor Law infirmaries and voluntary hospitals so that persons requiring treatment shall be sent direct to the most suitable institution, and shall thus be saved the delay and danger of seeking admission at two or more institutions before obtaining the necessary treatment.

Dr. ADDISON: I am aware of the case which the hon. Member has in mind, and I will consider the question; but I have no jurisdiction over voluntary hospitals.

Mr. BRIANT: Docs the right hon. Gentleman not realise that no effective medical administration in the country can be obtained if he does not withdraw the distinction between Poor Law infirmaries and hospitals?

Dr. ADDISON: I am not quite sure that any effective administration would maintain that distinction.

Mr. BRIANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce legislation to make it effective?

Dr. ADDISON: Nobody is better acquainted with the complications of this subject than my hon. Friend.

UNMARRIED MOTHERS (POOR LAW RELIEF).

Mr. RAPER: 37.
asked whether at a meeting of the Smallborough guardians, when an application was made for the necessary clothing for the child of an unmarried mother, who had refused the offer of the workhouse for herself and child, the deputy-clerk said that the regulations stated that a woman with an illegitimate child should not be granted out-relief; whether by Article XII. of the Relief Regulation Order, 1911, the guardians have power in a case of emergency to give clothing to a child, even though it is illegitimate; and what action he proposes to take in this matter.

Dr. ADDISON: I am informed that the clothing for which application was made was granted by the guardians. In the circumstances no action upon my part appears to be required.

Mr. RAPER: 38.
asked whether at a recent meeting of the Llanfyllin guardians of the poor the clerk to the guardians advised his Board that an unmarried mother who was in the workhouse with her child could not leave the workhouse without taking her child with her, although neither she nor the guardians knew anything about the people to whom the child was to be sent to be boarded out; whether regret was expressed by the guardians that the child should, under the circumstances, be sent out, and the chairman said it was not right; whether under Article 29 (2) of the Institutions Order, 1913, the guardians had power to permit the infant to remain until they considered it safe to discharge the child; and what action he proposes to take in this matter.

Dr. ADDISON: I have obtained a report upon this case of which I will send a copy to my hon. Friend. The report indicates that the information supplied to him is not entirely accurate and that the guardians have been able to arrange a suitable home for this woman and her child.

Mr. RAPER: 39.
asked whether it is the practice of some boards of guardians to refuse to admit into the workhouse children boarded out by their mothers when the mother has given up paying and the foster mother is unable to return the child to the mother without serious risk to the child; whether the death-rate of illegitimate children is double that of other children; and whether he will at once issue a circular to guardians explaining the right of an illegitimate child to necessary relief, and advising them to make the safety of the child their first object, and thus to supplement the circular of October, 1914, which deals with the children of widows?

Dr. ADDISON: It is the duty of a board of guardians to give relief in all cases arising in their district in which relief is required, and I am not aware of any practice such as is suggested in the first part of the question. The death-rate of children under one year of age during 1918 was 91 per 1,000 in the case of legitimate children and 186 per 1,000 in the case of illegitimate children.

NATIONAL SERVICE MEDICAL BOARD.

Mr. DOYLE: 41.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the Report of the National Service Medical Boards regarding the defective physique of great numbers of men who were examined for military service; what action he proposes to take to improve the health and physique of the nation; and, seeing that the shortage of proper housing accommodation is one of the most serious contributing causes, what progress has been made during the last three months to deal with such shortage?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, Sir; but it is quite impossible to set out within the limits of a Reply to a Parliamentary question that very large variety of ways in which the causes and the treatment of disease are being dealt with. In reply to the concluding paragraph of the Question, I may say that the number of houses for which the acceptance of tenders has been approved has increased during the last three months from about twelve thousand to about sixty thousand.

FOOD SUPPLIES.

MILK.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 43.
asked the Minister of Health on what date the Milk and Dairies Consolidation Act, 1915, and the Tuberculosis Order of 1913 will come into force; and whether under both the Act and the Order whole-time veterinary surgeons are to be appointed to carry out the required inspections.

Dr. ADDISON: The question of the appointment of whole-time veterinary officers is under consideration in connection with the Bill which it is proposed to introduce to amend the Milk and Dairies Act before bringing that Act into operation. The part of the question relating to the Tuberculosis Order should be addressed to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: And are operations to be delayed until the new Bill is brought in?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, it must be delayed until the modifications proposed in the new Bill are in force.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: And is there any chance of the Bill being brought in this Session?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, I hope so.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Is it not the fact that the design of the Milk and Dairies Consolidation Act was to ensure an improvement in the quality and cleanliness of the milk supply, particularly in London, and will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the desirability of putting it into operation at once and bringing in the Amending Bill afterwards?

Dr. ADDISON: I have considered that question, but cannot see my way to do that.

SHEEP AND PIGS.

Mr. CAUTLEY: 74.
asked what were the numbers of sheep and pigs, respectively, in England, as shown by the latest Returns made to the Board and the Returns made in 1913; and what are the estimated numbers now?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir. A. Boscawen): The number of sheep and pigs in England as returned on 4th June, 1919 and 1913, respectively, was as follows:—

1919.
1913.


Sheep
…
11,899,549
13,736,438


Pigs
…
1,627,242
1,911,520

The Ministry have no information as to the numbers at the present date.

Mr. CAUTLEY: Is not the decrease the result of control of the markets and prices by the Food Controller?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: My own impression is that the decreases are largely the result of control, but in both cases decontrol will take place, I understand, in the near future.

WHEAT PRICES.

Mr. LANE-FOX: 77.
asked whether the now scale of wheat prices recently issued fixes a maximum price only, but gives no guarantee of any minimum price to the farmer above that of 45s. per quarter given by the Corn Production Act; and whether this is the considered policy of the Government with a view to encouraging the growing of wheat in the United Kingdom?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The announcement as to wheat prices indicates that in the event of control being removed, farmers still have the benefit of a free market; but if it is found necessary in the national interest to retain control, they will receive the average c.i.f. price of imported wheat, provided that price does not exceed 100s, per quarter of 504 lbs. As already announced, it is proposed to introduce a Bill very shortly under which guaranteed minimum prices, based upon and varying with the cost of production, will be guaranteed on a higher scale than that provided in the Corn Production Act, 1917.

Mr. LANE-FOX: 78.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he is aware that this is the moment when farmers are having to decide whether to sow wheat for a spring crop or fallow their land for a wheat crop for 1921 harvest or to sow it down to grass; and whether the Ministry are encouraging the growing of wheat by still limiting the price until 1921 to 76s. per quarter, at which price already 400,000 acres have gone out of wheat cultivation this year.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and, with reference to the second part, it is hoped that the announcement recently made will have the effect desired of stimulating the growing of wheat.

POPLAR BOROUGH COUNCIL (WAR BONUS CLAIM).

Major BLAIR: 44.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to a case heard at the Bow County Court, when a watchman who had been in the employment of the Poplar Borough Council for many years claimed £3, which was made up of weekly sums of 4s., and to the evidence of the town clerk for the defendants that the only reason why this watchman was not given the 4s. weekly war bonus was because he had not a trade union ticket; and, if so, if he will say what steps he is taking in the matter?

Dr. ADDISON: I have seen a report of the case to which the hon. Member refers. Leave to appeal has been given, and I do not think I could properly make any statement in the matter at this stage.

FOREIGN CLAIMS COMMITTEE.

GERMAN CONFISCATION OF BRITISH PROPERTY.

Mr. LEONARD LYLE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when the Foreign Claims Committee expect to be able to settle with British subjects who have had their property confiscated in Germany?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. The proceeds of the liquidation of the property in Germany of British nationals will be paid to them as soon as they have been credited to this country through the Clearing Offices, but the German Clearing Office is not yet in operation. Further claims for compensation by British nationals whose property has been subjected to exceptional war measures in Germany have to be adjudicated upon by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal which is being established in accordance with the Treaty of Peace with Germany.

IRELAND.

LAND PURCHASE.

Major O'NEILL: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for the completion of land purchase in Ireland, to be passed concurrently with the Government of Ireland Bill, as was done in the ease of former Home Rule Bills?

Mr. BONAR LAW (the Leader of the House): The answer is in the affirmative.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

Major O'NEILL: 48.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether it is intended to retain in the British Government the office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland after the passing into law of the Government of Ireland Bill; (2) whether, in the case of constituencies returning more than one Member to the Parliament of the United Kingdom under the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill, it is intended that such constituencies shall be divided?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The points which my hon. and gallant Friend raises are matters which can only be dealt with adequately in Debate during the passage of the Bill.

Major O'NEILL: Is it not the fact that the Bill does contain Schedules with regard to the number of Members to be returned to this House, and can the right hon. Gentleman not give some indication as to the manner in which, where two Members are returned for the same constituency, they are to be elected? There is nothing in the Bill to indicate that.

Mr. BONAR LAW: It would really be impossible for Members to go through the Bill bit by bit and ask me to place interpretations on various points. There is no way of dealing with that except by discussion.

Captain REDMOND: Have the Government not yet made up their minds whether there is to be a Chief Secretary for Ireland in this House if this Bill ever passes?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is another of those questions which can easily be raised in the discussion.

Captain REDMOND: But is it not a vital question affecting the future Government of Ireland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: There are other questions more vital.

Captain REDMOND: So I think

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend may not have the recollections I have of past Home Rule debates, or I think he would remember that that question was raised over and over again in the debates.

Captain REDMOND: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can inform the House whether the words "The Attorney-General" on the back of the Government of Ireland Bill mean the Attorney-General for England or the Attorney-General for Ireland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Attorney-General for England.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is it the intention of the Government to take the Second Reading of the Bill before Easter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope so.

PEACE TREATIES.

KUBAN REPUBLIC.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed by
the Peace Conference now sitting in London that the Kuban Republic should receive complete recognition?

Mr. BONAR LAW: So far as His Majesty's Government are aware, no independent authority has been established in the Kuban Republic, and the question has not therefore arisen.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a representative of this Republic is in this country? Has the Foreign Office decided to honour him with an interview?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The facts are as I have stated. There has been no claim for independence from this Republic.

NORTH CAUCASUS.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's representatives to the Peace Conference now sitting in London will make representations for complete recognition of the Government of the people of North Caucasus?

The SECRETARY of the DEPARTMENT of OVERSEAS TRADE (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade to a similar question on March 1st.

WAR CRIMINALS (TRIAL).

Sir F. HALL: 52.
asked the Prime Minister if the British Government have acquiesced in the decision not to insist on the surrender of war criminals by Germany, as required by the Peace Treaty; if so, whether, as a result, the Germans responsible for the murder of Captain Fryatt and Nurse Cavell, the sinking of hospital ships, the ill-treatment of prisoners, the deportation of civilians from occupied territories, and other similar acts will go unpunished.; and, if so, will he state what guarantee is afforded that Germany will carry out the remainder of the obligations entered into by the Peace Treaty?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If my hon. and gallant Friend will consult the Note addressed to the German Government on February 13th, the terms of which, as the House is aware, were published in the press of February 17th, he will find
that the Treaty Rights of the Allied Governments as regards this matter are in no respect abandoned.

Sir F. HALL: Are we to understand from the reply that if, for instance, the Government do not punish these criminals, then the British Government will take the necessary steps to see that the terms of the Treaty are carried out and that these criminals are brought to this country in order that they may be dealt with?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think my answer was quite clear. We reserve all our rights under the Treaty. It would be a great mistake on the part of hon. Members to assume that the German Government were not going to bring these people to justice.

Viscount CURZON: Does that answer cover the case of the ex-Kaiser?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer refers to the alleged War criminals.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Have arrangements been made to review the sentences and results of the trials?

Captain LOSEBY: Is it right and proper to discuss in this House a question which is sub-judice?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the position is clear. We are going to allow these trials to take place in Germany in the expectation that they will be fair trials.

Sir F. HALL: And if the Government find that their expectation is not realised will they, according to the promise made at the General Election, take the necessary steps to see that the terms of the Treaty in that regard, as well as in other respects, are enforced?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the House will agree that the promises were made not alone by the Government. I think I have made the position clear. We reserve our rights.

Lieut.-Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Were not the questions of the trial of War criminals and the payment of an adequate indemnity by Germany the two points most insisted upon?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

HUNGARY (MURDER OF BELA SOMOGYI).

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances attending the murder in Budapest of Bela Somogyi, editor of the Hungarian social democratic paper Nepszava; and whether he will make a protest on behalf of His Majesty's Government against the régime which has continued since the overthrow of the Hungarian Soviet Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: My attention has been called to the murder referred to by the hon. Member. His Majesty's High Commissioner at Budapest has not ceased to urge on the Hungarian Government the extreme importance of discovering and punishing the guilty parties in this and similar cases. His Majesty's Government would, however, hardly feel justified in protesting against the Hungarian people's right to choose any such régime as they prefer, provided that there is no restoration of the Hapsburg dynasty and that no hostilities are undertaken against neighbouring nations.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why have the Government suddenly adopted this policy with regard to Hungary?

CROWN COLONIES (LEGISLATIVE, REFORMS).

Mr. FORREST: 64.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what measures of legislative reform are now being introduced into any of the Crown Colonies; and what proposals he has now under consideration.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I can only add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 10th of December last that the Secretary of State has now also under consideration the institution of a Legislative Council and Executive Council in Uganda.

RHODESIA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 65.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has been able to ascertain the accuracy of the allegation published in Rhodesia and reproduced in Cmd. 547,
page 10, namely, that imediately after the publication of the Rhodesia Reserves Commission Report, and without waiting for an Order in Council, the British South Africa Company added to its cattle ranches certain reserve areas recommended for reduction.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The letter referred to quotes a passage from the British South Africa Company's Annual Report for the year ended 31st March, 1917. I am not aware what the exact facts of the case referred to are, but it is, I think, quite clear that no eviction of natives has taken place. In this connection I would refer to the Chief Native Commissioner's Report on page 19 of Cmd. 547.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we be assured that the case before the Commission will not be prejudiced by the Rhodesian Government taking more land pending the issue of the Report?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, certainly.

FIJI (RIOTS).

Mr. BENNETT: 66.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonics whether His Majesty's Government will inquire, by special commission or otherwise, into the causes and circumstances of the recent riots in Fiji, in which New Zealand troops fired upon the rioters; and whether he is aware that telegrams have been received asserting that Indians are being terrorised and hundreds of the strikers have been arrested, bail being refused to them and their trial indefinitely postponed?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: According to the reports received from the Governor the only Case of firing was when a crowd engaged in wrecking bridges threatened to overwhelm a small body of Fiji police. Some revolver shots were fired and unfortunately one striker, in spite of prompt medical attention, succumbed. A magisterial enquiry is being held. I understand that some persons are being prosecuted for assaulting non-strikers or damaging property. On the whole the strike was conducted in an orderly manner and I see no reason for any interference. The strike has now terminated and a Government Commission,
which includes Indian representation, is inquiring into the alleged grievances.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it the fact that indentured labour for Fiji has been stopped?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, it terminated on December 31st last.

EAST AFRICA (CURRENCY).

Mr. BENNETT: 67.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received from the President of the Indian Congress Committee at Nairobi a protest on behalf of Indian traders against the recent Orders regarding the currency in East Africa, the immediate effect of which is said to have been to raise the exchange rate from the 9th February from 2 to 18 per cent., and later to 25, the protest alleging that the change in currency conditions spelt ruin for Indian trade with East Africa; if he has received a telegram from the Indian trading communities of Ujoro, Cambwa, and Nakuru, urging the withdrawal of the recent currency Order; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, Sir; I have received the protest referred to. The fixing of the East African rupee on a sterling basis, eventually at 2s., undoubtedly inflicts some hardship on the local Indian community, in so far as they purchase goods from India or owe money there, though they will gain correspondingly in so far as they draw new capital from India or are producers or traders for export. To have allowed the East African rupee to follow the Indian rupee to its present price, would, however, have involved a far greater measure of hardship on all producers in East Africa, including the ex-service settlers. I do not think the Indian community have any reason to complain that their interests have been disregarded in the compromise which has been decided on.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Could not the hon. and gallant Gentleman now change the currency in East Africa from rupees to sterling, and then this problem would not arise?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: We are, as a matter of fact, putting the currency in East Africa on a sterling basis, with a silver coin at one-tenth of a pound
sterling. Whether that silver coin is still called a rupee or not, it is not the Indian rupee. It is a sterling coin equivalent to the English florin.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Would it not be simpler to call it a two-shilling piece by the adoption of the British currency, and would not that get rid of this sense of grievance, which is undoubtedly genuine?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Would it not be better to have an Imperial sterling currency note on the basis of a gold reserve in the Colonies, so that we do not have these different currencies dotted all over the British Empire?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: There is a great deal to be said for that suggestion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Was the India Office consulted before the Regulation was passed, and did it accept the Regulation?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: No, I do not think it was.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why was it not consulted, seeing that it affected Indians primarily?

OFFICE ACCOMMODATION, CITY OF LONDON.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 56.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the attention of the Government has been called to the extent of the increase of many rents that are being charged for office accommodation in the City of London, an increase made possible owing to temporary shortage of supply; and whether the Government propose to take any action in the matter?

Mr. BONAP LAW: The attention of the Government has been called to this matter which is receiving consideration by the Committee now sitting.

HIGH PRICES.

Sir M. BARLOW: 58.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the rise in the prices of cotton, woollen, and many other goods in this country, stated to be due to the great foreign demand, he can see his way, in order to allay public anxiety, to grant an opportunity for the consideration of the causes of the rise in prices and of possible remedies at an early date?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have already stated in the House, the Government fully realises the desirability of an early discussion of this important question, and I hope to be able to arrange it on Monday week.?

MEDICAL TREATMENT AND NURSING.

Colonel NEWMAN: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, owing to heavy taxation and the increase in the cost of living, large numbers of the middle classes are unable to afford the expense of treatment and nursing in their own homes should illness overtake them; whether he is aware that they are unable and unwilling to obtain admission to and further overcrowd the large hospitals maintained by voluntary contribution for the pre-war poorer classes of the community; and what action does he propose to take to meet their necessities?

Dr. ADDISON: I am fully aware of the present pressure upon the voluntary hospitals and the general question of the provision of hospital treatment has for some time past been engaging the attention of the Medical Consultative Council from whom I am expecting a Report shortly, I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

BRITISH AMBASSADOR, WASHINGTON.

Mr. ALFRED T. DAVIES: 61.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is now possible to announce the name of the newly appointed Ambassador to represent Great Britain at Washington?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The appointment of Sir Auckland Geddes as British Ambassador at Washington was officially announced in the Press yesterday.

Mr. HOGGE: What financial arrangements have been made?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must have notice of that question.

SMYRNA.

Sir J. D. REES: 62.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the situation created by
the attitude and action of the Greeks at Smyrna; and, if so, whether some satisfaction will be given to the Moslems who have suffered outrage at their hands?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am aware that the situation at Smyrna is attended with difficulty and that unfortunate incidents have occurred on both sides. But I am not in a position to say what satisfaction it may be possible to give in either case.

Sir J. D. REES: Can the hon. Baronet undertake to say that similar consideration will be given to the Moslems as is given to the Armenians?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: So far as it is within the power of His Majesty's Government, yes.

CENTRAL EUROPE (MEAT SUPPLIES).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 63.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the glut of meat in British ports, and in British ships awaiting to unload meat in British ports, some of this moat can be diverted to Trieste for sale in Central Europe where there is a meat famine; and whether, in the event of there being no adequate present supply of refrigerating vans on the railways radiating from Trieste, steps can be taken to have refrigerating vans made in Vienna or other manufacturing centre?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The question of shipping meat from this country to relieve the food crisis in Central Europe is being carefully studied. One cargo of refrigerated meat has already been sent to Vienna via Hamburg. The route via Trieste is not considered to be practicable for such shipments for the moment, as the railway facilities from Trieste, which are in any case limited, are largely monopolised by the transport of cereals to Austria. Under present financial conditions the Austrians greatly prefer to take cereals and fats rather than meat. As regards the last part of the question, a scheme is under consideration for the supply of raw materials for Austrian manufactures. But it is doubtful whether the best way of using those materials would be in the production of refrigerating vans, as, by the time the vans are
ready, the meat at present available in this country will probably have gone into-consumption.

BRITISH ARMY.

CADETS (EXAMINATIONS).

Mr. HIGHAM: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the proposed reduction in the strength of the Army, and the great surplus of artillery and other officers, military examinations for admission of cadets should be suspended for the present so that youths should not be tempted to launch on a military career with little chance of promotion?

The PARLIAMENTARY and FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir A. Williamson): My right hon Friend does not consider it advisable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

OFFICERS TRANSFERRED TO ADMIRALTY.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, when officers invalided from the front were during the War invited to undertake work under the Admiralty, it was clearly explained to them that they would receive lower pay and also, at the termination of the War, a lower rate of gratuity than if they had remained doing duty with the Army?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am not in a position to state the terms upon which such officers were invited to take employment under the Admiralty; but, if the hon. and gallant Member will give me-particulars of the case he has in mind, I will make inquiry into it.

Sir J. HOPE: Was it explained to these officers who were transferred to work under the Admiralty, and who were not conversant with War Office methods, that they were suffering loss thereby, and does the right hon. Baronet think it fair that an officer, should be penalised for doing useful work for his country?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot answer for the general bulk of officers. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will send me particulars of this case I will have it investigated.

SERVICE AT ADEN.

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether Quarter-master-sergeant A. Manning, motor transport section, who joined the 1/4th Somerset Light Infantry in August, 1914, and left England in October, 1914, is still at Aden; whether there are also four other 1914 men there; and when these men will be demobilised?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am informed by the General Officer Commanding at Aden, in a telegram dated the 11th February, that all the remaining 1914 men are now being sent home as soon as passages become available.

CONWAY MUSSEL PURIFICATION TANKS.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 71.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture on what date the regulations to be observed by users of the Conway mussel purification tanks were sealed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries; and whether the Ministry will now cause these Regulations to be advertised in one or more newspapers circulating in the neighbourhood of Conway?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Regulations referred to are not formal Regulations under the Seal of the Minister. The Regulations have been sufficiently brought to the attention of the fishermen, who can obtain copies on application. No advantage would be gained by their advertisement.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 73.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture how many fishermen at Conway have been excluded from the use of the mussel-cleansing tanks there for alleged non-compliance with the rules and Regulations made by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Defence of the Realm Regulations; how many of these fishermen have been allowed to resume the use of the tanks; and what tribunal or court of summary jurisdiction tried these men for their alleged contravention of the Regulations prior to their exclusion from the use of the tanks?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Six fishermen have been excluded, of whom two have been re-admitted. The case of the other
four is under consideration. No question of trial before a court of summary jurisdiction arises. The Ministry, having acquired the tanks from the Corporation, and administering them for the benefit of the fishery and of the public health, are at liberty to make their own Regulations for their use. Any fisherman who wishes to have the benefit of the tanks must obey the Regulations.

ALLOTMENTS, EPPING FOREST.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 75
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he has had an opportunity of considering further the question of the allotments in Epping Forest; whether he is prepared to recommend the bringing in of a special Bill to deal with this case; and, if so, when it is anticipated such action will take place?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: After careful consideration, I regret that I cannot see my way to bring in a special Bill to deal with this case.

FOREST OF DEAN (ROAD WORKS).

Mr. WIGNALL: 76.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he is aware that the reluctance of the Crown authorities to carry out the works needed in the Forest of Dean, i.e., the improving of surface drainage and the making of new roads, is viewed with anxiety not only by the many ex-soldiers who have recently been discharged by His Majesty's Office of Woods representative to allow of pupils or students being trained in forestry, but by the residents generally; whether he is aware that the improving of surface drainage and the starting of making new roads are an urgent necessity; is he aware that the number of men who were employed in pre-War time are not now so employed; and whether he will take such steps as are required to put these works in hand?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is necessary to communicate with the Deputy Surveyor in charge of the Forest of Dean in order to obtain information in regard to some of the points raised, and I regret that it is consequently impossible to answer the question fully to-day, but if the hon. Member will repeat the question in a few days' time I shall be pleased to give a further reply.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Sir R. COOPER: 79.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture how many cases of foot-and-mouth disease have been reported since the Armistice in Scotland and England, respectively; and will he state the steps he is taking to discover the means by which this disease is spread in England.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Since the date of the Armistice, there have been 28 initial outbreaks of invasion of foot-and-mouth disease in England and Wales, from which 87 additional premises, contiguous or in the immediate vicinity, have become infected, making a total of 115 premises actually infected with the disease. With the exception of one case in Wales, all the outbreaks have occurred in England.
Each centre of initial invasion has been successfully eradicated and general dissemination of infection prevented. The Ministry's officers conduct a searching cross-examination of the owner and attendants of the affected animals with regard to each initial outbreak, but so far, no connection has been traced. The spread of the disease to premises in the immediate vicinity of an initial outbreak has been traced to contaminated attendants, feeding stuffs, water, and to infected animals which changed hands before the Ministry's officers took charge.

Sir R. COOPER: Has not the information satisfied the hon. Gentleman that much more drastic action ought to be taken at once by the Government to prevent further outbreaks?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not think we could take more drastic action, but I think there is a case for further investigation.

Sir R. COOPER: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the investigations will be carried out at once?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes.

REGENT STREET (REBUILDING).

Sir A. FELL: 80.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture if the Government is considering proposals for the rebuilding of any portions of Regent Street or the Quadrant; if so, if the strictest limits
are to be placed upon the height of the buildings to be erected so that the present sky line or height is not altered, and the whole street damaged for the benefit or gain of any particular premises; and if the height of the present buildings is as high as the breadth of the street will permit without serious damage to the light and air of this street?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have been asked to answer this, question as the Crown property in Regent Street, including the Quadrant, is in charge of the Commissioners of Woods. Many of the houses have already been rebuilt, and agreements have been entered into, or are under consideration, for the rebuilding of others. The highest will be well under the limit prescribed by the London Building Acts and the effect may be judged by the new buildings already erected. The Commissioners do not consider that the old buildings are as high as the breadth of the street will permit without serious damage to the light and air of the street. They would prefer the buildings to be kept low, but are advised that it would be impossible to satisfy the business requirements of tenants and to obtain the full ground rents which the property is worth without allowing rebuilding to be carried to the height of the new buildings. As regards the Quadrant the question of height was specially considered by a committee of eminent architects who unanimously advised that the height must be regulated so as to conform exactly with that of the recently erected Piccadilly Hotel.

Sir A. FELL: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing the matter, and seeing the proposed plans, before we are committed to any rebuilding scheme in Regent Street?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I can hardly answer that, but I will make representations in the proper quarter.

ALEXANDRA PARK (RE-OPENING).

Mr. WATERSON: 81.
asked the First Commissioner of Works when it is the intention of his Department to release the Alexandra Park grounds for the use of the public; and whether the delay in such re-opening is attached to his Department or the War Office?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The grounds in question were surrendered to the trustees of the Alexandra Park in October last, and the responsibility for re-opening them rests with the trustees. So far as I am aware, neither my Department nor the War Office are responsible for the delay.

Mr. HURD: Is it not a fact that last summer the right hon. Gentleman promised the immediate release of these grounds to a deputation of public authorities, and that the building itself would be released well within the year?

Sir A. MOND: The grounds were released in October.

EXCHEQUER BONDS.

Mr. LAMBERT: (by Private Notice)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement in regard to the results of the issue of 5¾ per Cent. Exchequer Bonds, which closed on Saturday last?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I gave the House approximate figures on February 24th showing that a total of about £99,000,000 Bonds were converted. It is not yet possible to give exact figures for the cash subscriptions, but I can say that the cash subscribed exceeds £60,000,000, making the total of the issue not less than £180,000,000. Out of a total of £198,200,000 of Exchequer Bonds maturing during 1920 we have therefore been able to provide £138,500,000 towards the £156,400,000 maturities in February and March and £21,500,000 towards the £46,800,000 maturity of 1st December., This will be recognised as a most satisfactory result. It is indeed much better than I had dared to hope or than competent advisers thought possible.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

EQUALISATION OF POOR RATE, LONDON.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the necessity for equalisation of the poor rate of London, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Kiley.]

LAND VALUES (TAXATION).

On this day fortnight, to call attention to the taxation of land values, and to move a Resolution.—[Colonel Wedgwood.]

ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONS.

On this day fortnight, to call attention to Anglo-American relations, and to move a Resolution.—[Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy.]

STANDING COMMITTEES. (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.)

Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. William Nicholson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee D (in respect of the Representation of the People Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Silver Coinage Bill and the Public Utility Companies (Capital Issues) Bill): Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Public Utility Companies (Capital Issues) Bill): Mr. Bridgeman and Sir Auckland Geddes.

Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the Tredegar Urban District Council Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the Bedwellty Urban District Council,' the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

2. "That, in the case of the Eastbourne Waterworks [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

[MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

REVENUE BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £25, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain and certain Post Offices abroad.

Mr. ACLAND: There was a Reduction moved last night. Will that discussion be now resumed?

The CHAIRMAN: A Reduction moved at a previous Sitting lapses at the end of the Sitting, but of course it can be resumed by any hon. Member who desires it.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I desire to say a few words on the subject about Inland Revenue buildings in Manchester. A Motion was made last night to reduce the Vote by the amount required for this building, and I desire to put a few reasons before the Committee why this Vote should be sanctioned. It is quite true, as was suggested in the course of the Debate, that considerable difficulty is experienced in Manchester and the district in having buildings of any kind erected. But it is equally true, and this appeals to me personally very much, that in Manchester and district there is a very large amount of money which we hope to gather for the Inland Revenue, and it is equally true at the present moment that, owing to the difficulty of finding sufficient housing for the Inland Revenue staff, we are unable to collect as much as we ought. One or two hon. Members spoke as though we could lay our fingers on the spot and say, that so much would be collected, if the staff were greater, or say who are the people who are escaping the payment of taxes. Of course, to anyone familiar with these matters it is clear that neither of these courses is possible.
Where you have a large business or a large corporation the utmost penny of the Income Tax is obtained A large corporation of that kind have to publish all their accounts and probably keep trained accountants working all the year round in their offices, not only on the ordinary accounts which have to be presented to the shareholders, but also in the preparation of the special accounts required by the Inland Revenue with reference to Income Tax. Where the difficulty comes in is in the matter of private traders who are making moderate profits. I do not say for a moment that, generally speaking, there is any great attempt at evasion, but no one who has had to get out, as I have tried to get out, the Income Tax accounts of businesses, can fail to be struck by the extreme difficulty in getting out those accounts. It is perfectly possible, in fact, it is very easy, to make a claim for deductions which cannot be substantiated either by Statut or fact, and why the Inland Revenue want the staff strengthened is to check all these claims for deductions and press home all the demands for the payment of Income Tax which are enforceable by Statute.
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Bonar Law), when ho was Chancellor of the Exchequer, pointed out to the House many times that the Revenue was suffering during the War owing to the number of the trained men in the Inland Revenue service who were taken away for military service. It was in the way that I have attempted to describe that the loss was suffered. An enormous number of accounts were unable to be subjected to the expert investigation which is necessary, and we know, and know for certain, that large amounts of money must have escaped through the mesh, which escape ought to have been prevented, and could have been prevented by a proper staff, but which, in the circumstances, could not be prevented. For some time past in Manchester circumstances have been against an adequate and complete collection of Revenue, and we wish to make this good and stop this gap in the mesh as soon as possible. There is one building in Manchester occupied by Inland Revenue officials which belongs to the Crown, but there are no fewer than six separate branches of officers who are at this moment in hired buildings. If we got this Vote and can secure a site, which is no easy matter, and put up our
building, we can then house enough of the men who are at present in hired quarters to save nearly £2,000 a year in rent, and we can provide the extra staff required to enable us to do our work completely and efficiently. In these circumstances, it would be very false economy for this Committee to reject a proposal of this kind on this Vote and not give us an opportunity of getting what we are entitled to, that is, the last ounce that can be obtained from the men who at present are making such substantial profits. I believe that there is no part of the country in which the harvest is more ripe or likely to be more productive from our point of view, and my anxiety is to see that no taxpayer in this country shall escape the last penny which is legitimately due by him to any Department over which I have control.

Mr. STEVENS: Can the hon Gentleman say what is the number of the staffs he proposes to accommodate, and when they will be accommodated? Could a building be put up within the next six months to meet all requirements?

Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot tell the hon. Member how long it will take to put up the building. We want to get on with it, and the first thing to do is to obtain the site, and once the site is obtained, we will put up the building. I do not propose to distinguish between the amount of money we require for one thing more than another, because there is no worse thing this Committee can do in an Estimate than to show how much money Parliament is about to give for a site, because then the price is put up. There are at present in Manchester 260 Inland Revenue officials. To do our work efficiently we should want about 100 more. The saving to be made in the payment of rents is roughly £2,000 a year. Even if this building is put up, it will still be necessary to have a certain number of the staff in hired buildings.

Mr. HOUSTON: Are they working at pressure now?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, they are all overworked.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. STEVENS: Hero we are asked to provide a sum for a permanent building. Am I to understand that it is to be commenced forthwith? Those who know anything about Manchester and the district
know that during the next two years, at any rate, there will be far greater requirements for the necessities of the country and of the district, not only in the provision of houses, where thousands and thousands of houses are necessary, but also of works. Could not the Department accommodate themselves temporarily, as private traders and others have to do, and obtain the accommodation which they can readily obtain on a site with temporary buildings upon it— huts? If they do that, all their requirements can be met almost immediately and this work at this time need not be undertaken.

Major LLCYD-GREAME: I do not know whether I might make a suggestion, but there are before us to-day several Votes, all of which raise the question of new buildings and the extension of existing buildings. I want to reserve what I have to say on a Motion which I have tabled to reduce a subsequent Vote, which I think the Committee will agree raises far and away the most serious question of building. It is there proposed to spend something like £1,000,000 on the extension of the Labour Exchanges. It would be very much to the convenience of the Committee if we could in some way take these Building Votes together and find out which really are essential. They all raise much the same question. I am not at all clear when this building is going to be erected, but I gather that the hon. Gentleman has not a site in view at the present moment, and, if that be so, it must be a long time before the Inland Revenue are going to get any advantage from the proposal. All these must be matters of relative urgency. A large number of departments are at present housed in buildings in those cities, and, as those departments become less necessary, and, as I hope, their staffs are reduced, other buildings will become available. It is undesirable that we should commit ourselves to any undertaking which may take three years to complete unless we know that all the Government departments have been together and have found out whether any buildings in which the permanent staff might be accommodated are going to be vacated.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. WARREN: Listening yesterday to the remarks in this House upon this particular Estimate, I was reminded of an evening last Session
when the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, in very solemn and serious tones, warned the country of the danger of extravagance and of the fact that the Government did not possess a bottomless purse. He said that at this particular juncture in our history it was of the highest importance that reasonable economy should be exercised in every direction. Shortly following that speech, there was a proposal of the Government for the increase of Ministers' salaries. Some of us wondered whether the Government were in earnest and whether they really believed the doctrine that the President of the Board of Trade had preached. There was strong opposition, and that Bill went I know not where, but one has never heard of it since. I want as an ordinary Member to say that I am in an exceedingly difficult position with regard to this proposed expenditure. I hold in my hand a petition that I have received from the women of my constituency protesting against the continued rise in prices for which Government extravagance is responsible. They may be right, or they may be wrong, probably to an extent they are wrong, but, rightly or wrongly, many of these women are of this opinion, and the House and the Government should do all in their power to allay that suspicion, to remove it, and to show that there is no cause for it. That is the purpose for which I rose, and I earnestly hope that the Government will carry into effect the doctrine that it has preached—Example is better than precept—and that they will see that no expenditure is undertaken that can be reasonably avoided at this time, because, wherever there is large expenditure by the Government, it will be regarded by those people as justifying the opinion expressed in this Petition. I want, and I believe all the Members of the House want, to allay that feeling and to remove it and to bring about reasonable economy throughout the length and breadth of the country.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I wish to join in the protest against the Government indulging in any building operations other than those connected with the Housing problem. They have met with a great deal of criticism from various Members of the House as to the delay which has taken place from one cause or another in the provision of houses, particularly
for the working classes, and, although no doubt a good case has been made out in normal times for the better housing of the Government Departments, and in particular the Inland Revenue, where you get great efficiency, I submit that the continued want of decent and moral housing conditions for thousands of people in the country, due to the inefficiency of another Department, is of greater importance even than the needs of the staff of the various Government Departments. Anyone connected with an industrial constituency must have personal knowledge of most apalling overcrowding and consequent immorality and inefficiency throughout the length and breadth of the country, because houses are not available. Apart from the mere financial question whether we can afford these hundreds of thousands of pounds, we cannot afford the labour, and the bricks and mortar required by Government work other than houses for the working classes, and on that ground, and that ground alone, I hope that the House will pronounce with no uncertain voice as to the compelling necessity of delaying these works, no matter how desirable they may be in normal conditions, until the greater necessities of ordinary people throughout the length and breadth of the country are satisfied.

Mr. FRANCE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, replying to the Debate on economy, said that whenever a question of expenditure was raised it was the House which urged more expenditure against one who, I am quite sure, was most sedulously endeavouring in many ways to guard the public purse. This is an occasion upon which we can really see how far the Government are in harmony with the House and the country in desiring to sec economy where expenditure is not absolutely necessary. I am afraid that the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not at all convince me that this expenditure at the moment is necessary. The point which he made that it is very urgently necessary in order to got in all the revenue possible from the prosperous and fortunate neighbourhood of Manchester, of course, commands our sympathy, but it did not appear that there would be any immediate advantage coming to the Treasury from the passing of this Vote. From his own showing, a site has not been obtained, and the building cannot be put up for some time.
What is to happen in the meantime? The staff, perhaps, are not working under ideal conditions, but they are working under conditions which are not very disadvantageous, and, after all, premises are not so necessary in the collection of revenue as energy, vigilance, and determination. These are not qualities that require large premises to have their full scope. The two urgent questions moving the people of the country to-day are, first, the necessity for the supply of houses, and, secondly, the need for rigid economy where expenditure is not urgently required. I therefore hope that the Government will bow to the feeling that there is in the House that unnecessary expenditure on buildings should not be incurred at the present moment.

Mr. SPENCER: The hon. Gentleman representing the Treasury, if he made out any case, made out one against the expenditure of this money. He put forward two diametrically opposite points of view. In the first place, he said that they were desirous of erecting these buildings to secure more efficiency in the collection of revenue from a body of small traders. So far as the great corporations of Manchester are concerned, there is no necessity for the erection of these buildings, because they are already collecting all that they can from them. No matter how careful they were to bring them all within the net of the Inland Revenue, some of the small traders escaped. That, however, was not the primary reason which the hon. Gentleman advanced. The primary reason was the demands which were made by these small traders for reductions. He said that these reductions could not be attended to, and that they wanted a larger and more efficient staff at Manchester with buildings in which to house them. There are hon. Members here representing the great city of Manchester, and I am quite certain, if there were any great complaints on the part of the small traders of Manchester, that they were not being treated justly by the Inland Revenue officials, that their grievances would have been voiced in this House. There has been no such outcry, and I take it that is evidence in itself that the small trader of Manchester is not suffering any injustice at the hands of the Inland Revenue authorities. One cannot say whether the Inland Revenue
are getting all the money that they ought to get or not, but the hon. Gentleman himself has indicated that there is very little money to get in even if he gets all that it is possible to get under the Finance Act. I have not risen, however, so much to protest from that point of view as to join with the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. T. Thomson), who has protested against the spending of this money and thus transferring labour from the building of working men's cottages which are very desirable in the district of Manchester and all the great industrial centres. It is not merely a question of labour, it is also a question of material. If the Government themselves are going to make the first demand upon the building trade for labour and material, it must naturally follow that those who want houses will have to continue to wait. In view of the very weak case which has been made out by the hon. Gentleman, I sincerely hope that the Committee will not vote this largo sum of money.

Captain COOTE: My hon. and gallant Friend beside me (Colonel Gretton) and myself were, I think, the first last night to raise objection to this Vote, and I rise to suggest that, in view of the strong opposition evinced in the House, the hon. Gentleman representing the Government should consent to withdraw the Estimate for the time being. I do not want to labour the points that have been made, for they are sufficiently obvious. I think that if the Government do not withdraw this Estimate there is no doubt that the Committee will insist upon a division, and in that division the Government will find against them those who really mean what they say, both on the subject of economy and on the subject of housing.

Mr. R. CARTER: As a member of the Manchester Corporation I would like to say that I do not think it is right and proper that this money should be spent on public work in Manchester when the demand for houses is so great. In Manchester we have the greatest possible difficulty in getting sufficient labour to carry out the housing scheme already accepted. We are doing our best to get the houses built, because of the absolute necessity there is for them. This is not the time to divert labour to public buildings of this sort. I am certain that there could be carried on without such a building a Re-
venue Department to collect all the money that ought to be collected, and thus avoid interfering with the pressing necessity for housing the labouring classes. I feel very strongly about this, and I join with the last speaker in the hope that the Government will see their way to drop this scheme.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I join in the demand that the Government should withdraw this Estimate. The point is simply this: Is this building absolutely essential, or is it not? Can the representative of the Government stand at the Table and tell the House that the building is absolutely essential at the present time? From what has been said by the hon. Member who spoke last, I think we have proof that that is not the case. If the Government do not withdraw the Estimate, they should at least leave the matter to the free decision of the House.

Captain ELLIOT: Last night we asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he could give us an assurance that he had consulted the Ministry of Health on this subject. He said he could not do that at the time. We did not call for a Division last night. To-day we have had no assurance from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that such a consultation has taken place. As the Government have refused to meet us on this point, we may consider that their case is not a strong case. Permanent buildings are quite different from temporary buildings, in which, as we know, such work could be carried on. It has been carried on in temporary buildings in the great open spaces of London throughout the War. It is not necessary to have permanent buildings for office staffs, or not as necessary as to have permanent buildings for people to live in. I think we are justified in asking whether the Treasury has consulted the Ministry of Health. When the House makes such a request, and postpones a demand for an answer for 24 hours, it is entitled to have an answer.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): In reply to the last question, I might say that a consultation on this subject was held with the Minister of Health this morning. He raised no objection to this scheme going through. In regard to further questions raised during the Debate, I think my right hon. Friend, when dealing with the
question of economy, made out an absolutely overwhelming case. He pointed out that this scheme would save £2,000 a year in rent, and, in addition to that, it would bring in a large amount of revenue which is not now being collected.—[HON. MEMBERS: "In three years' time."]—Hon. Members say in three years' time. The building is supposed to be finished in about 15 months.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Never!"]—The Estimate is for building in 15 months' time, and hon. Members know well enough that it will not take three years. I assume that the site would be procured. On the one hand, hon. Members have asked me to postpone the building, and, on the other hand, it has been stated that the building will not be completed soon enough. It is obvious that the longer the building is postponed, the longer it will take to complete, and the greater the loss to the Revenue.—["HON. MEMBERS: "Why a loss?'"]—The Secretary to the Treasury has said that unless an additional staff is appointed to deal more exhaustively with the Income Tax accounts, a large amount of Income Tax that ought to be paid will not be paid, and I understand that the Treasury requires a staff of at least another 100. I have referred already to the extreme difficulty of obtaining office accommodation in Manchester I am sure that the hon. Member who spoke as a representative of the Manchester Corporation will agree that to obtain office accommodation in Manchester is to-day almost an impossibility. One of the complaints I have heard from business men in Manchester is that the Government are occupying business premises, and they ask when we are going to release them. This scheme would release a large amount of that office accommodation which has been clamoured for. At one moment the demand is made that we should release the offices we now have and in the next moment we are told that we ought to extend rather than release the offices we possess.

Mr. FRANCE: Are not those temporary offices for temporary work?

Sir A. MOND: Of course some of it is temporary work and some of it is becoming permanent work, and this is permanent work. We have several sets of offices, and we should have to take more. The Government fully realise the great importance of not diverting any material
or labour from the urgent task of building cottages. Nobody is in any doubt as to the urgency of the housing problem. I would like to point out to the House that this Vote is a token Vote in order to obtain the site and to erect the building. I will make a proposition which I think may meet the views which have been expressed. The token Vote would enable us to proceed with the negotiations for the purchase of the site. So far that would not interfere with housing at all. I will give an undertaking that we will not go on with the building at the present time unless after consultation with the Minister of Health. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think I am making an endeavour to meet the Committee very fairly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] After all, what is the issue between us? It is contended that this scheme will interfere with housing. My advice is that for the type of building which is proposed we shall use steel and concrete. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about labour?"] It is not the class of labour that is used in building cottages.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Do they not use live builders to put up these buildings?

Sir A. MOND: The hon. Member knows very well that there are different kinds of people in the building trade. The type of people who put up large buildings of steel girders are not the people who build cottages.

Major LLOYD-GREAME: Is that why the Minister of Health is trying to come to an arrangement with the federated builders?

Sir A. MOND: I do not see that that interferes with the type of building which we propose here. I have offered not to go on with this building unless the Minister of Health is satisfied that it will not interfere with housing. What is our difficulty? The Committee may as well face it. It is not a difficulty in this case only, but one which will meet Members at every turn. The Government services are continually expanding and the House is repeatedly voting new services. Those services require staffs, and the staffs require accommodation.

Mr. W. THORNE: Put them down cellars; that is what I understand these fellows want.

Sir A. MONO: Hon. Members want economy. There is an economy here. Does not the Committee wish to save £2,500 a year? It is uneconomic. If I am asked, can I guarantee these figures showing that there will be this saving, I can only guarantee the figures so far as I am advised. Hon. Members have no idea of the present loss and expense. It is a most uneconomic way of doing the business, and we may have to pay a much larger amount. The loss may rise to £100,000 a year, and in the collection of revenue that is uneconomic. There can be no doubt about that. The real difficulty which has been raised is the question of housing. We feel that difficulty. The Government is as much interested in housing as anyone else is. If we can get this Vote, and if we then find that this scheme will interfere with housing in Manchester, we will postpone it until we are assured that it will not so interfere. I hope the Committee will give me the Vote, and allow me to negotiate in the first place for the acquisition of a site. Such sites do not often come into the market. We will not go on with it then until we communicate with the Minister of Health, and no doubt he will go into it with the Manchester Corporation to see if they have any objection.

Mr. HOUSTON: I merely rise to remind the Committee that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has stated already that the Treasury officials are at present doing their work efficiently, and that being the case, there does appear to be no case for immediate expenditure on this scheme. The First Commissioner of Works has made an appeal on behalf of the Government, but even after that, if the Committee goes to a division, I shall vote against him.

Sir F. HALL: I did not make up my mind upon this subject until I had heard both sides. But after the speech of the First Commissioner of Works I think I quite understand it. I know how keen the Minister of Health is on the question of building for the working classes, and that other building should be postponed until this accommodation has been provided, except in most urgent cases. There is no question of urgency in this case. It appears that an arrangement has been come to between
the hon. Member who represents the Treasury and the Minister of Health. I do not want to do anything to delay this Vote, and after the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury I cannot say that I have any other desire than to follow his advice so far as I can. All through the country, however, there is a cry for new houses for the working classes, and we have been advised on all sides that we should not erect other buildings unless they are absolutely necessary, and unless they will not interfere with the housing policy of the Government. In my constituency it was proposed by the Government that certain offices should be erected. I went to see some Members of the Government and also the Minister of Health, and I pointed out to them that instead of building those offices they should take account of the crying need there for the housing of the people. The result was that they withdrew that proposition because they were convinced that housing accommodation was much more urgent. I think this is a case for the decision of a Committee of this House. I do not think the Committee would be satisfied to leave it to the two Departments to settle and make an arrangement between themselves. The Minister has made the suggestion that we should give him this Vole in order that he might be in a position to take necessary steps in providing a site. I quite realise that he would require a reasonable time for that. Provided that he will undertake that the work of building will not go on, that no further stops will be taken to erect the building until ho has again come before this House, we might agree. Will he promise to do that? The First Commissioner of Works must know that the House is always generous, and I think he would got the Vote and would be able to get the site if he would promise that the other work should not go on without further discussion. I am sure the House of Commons will give the most careful consideration to the proposal if it comes up again. Therefore. I do suggest that he should give that pledge and we shall be able to give him the Vote now.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I desire to make the same suggestion as that which has just been made, that the Minister should promise not to proceed any further than this with the scheme until this House shall agree to it. He has just
said, that the Minister of Health has approved of it.

Mr. BALDWIN: He said that the Minister of Health had no objection. He did not say he approved of it.

Mr. EDWARDS: Yes, he said he had no objection, but what could that mean? I am surprised that he did not object. He has the main responsibility for the housing of the people of the country and therefore I am surprised. I am surprised, also, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not something to say about it. He mot a deputation a few weeks ago from the local authorities, and the Prime Minister said—I think I am quoting his exact words—that it was impossible to arrange a national loan for housing, and that housing depended upon local resources. He said that housing was hopeless and could not proceed without that local assistance. Now we have here an estimate for nearly £1,000,000. How many officials were being housed in wooden buildings during the War? Is there not a sufficient number of these wooden buildings at the disposal of the Government to be put down at Manchester so that the office work could be done? Having served the purpose during the War, could they not be used in that way?

Mr. BALDWIN: The estimate is not for £1,000,000; it is for £113,000.

Mr. EDWARDS: I beg pardon, I was taking the whole of the heading. But that is not material to my argument that there are sufficient wooden buildings which housed large staffs during the war and that might be used for' many years to come. It has been suggested that pople should be housed in wooden buildings. Surely people who work eight or nine hours a day should not be asked to live in them. As a Labour representative, I believe that everyone should be housed to the best advantage. Civil servants should be allowed to do their work under the best conditions. There can be no two opinions about that. But we have to consider which is the most urgent kind of building. There can be no two opinions about that either. The most urgent matter is housing—to provide places for people to live in. I had a letter from an ex-soldier last week. He told me—I know the place—that himself and his wife and four children were living in one
room upstairs. Everything was done in that one room, cooking, eating, sleeping and everything else. I have never known that happen there before, though I have lived there many years. It might have happened in some of the large cities, but I have never experienced it in the villages of the country. Therefore, I venture to suggest that these temporary wooden buildings could be sent to Manchester and erected for offices, and that they might be used for some years to come. If that were done, the housing question would be cased somewhat. The hon. Gentleman, I hope, will agree to bring the matter before the House again. He can proceed with the preliminary work, and I think ho might agree to make that promise. But the suggestion he has made already is, in my opinion, not acceptable.

Colonel GRETTON: The Motion, I understand, is to reduce the Vote by £5.

The CHAIRMAN: The Motion which was made yesterday by the hon. and gallant Member was to reduce the amount by £5, but that Motion has lapsed with yesterday's sitting. It could be renewed now if desired, but the better form would be, as the discussion has been mainly on the Manchester case, to move that Item F, referring to that proposal should be omitted from the Vote.

Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move "That Item F [New Works, Alterations, Additions and Purchases, £5] be omitted from the proposed Vote."
A question has been raised about the acquisition of the site, but they cannot acquire the site for some time. A consultation between Ministers with regard to the whole scheme would not be acceptable to many Members of the Committee. Those of us who have had experience in these matter know that Ministerial consultations are, and we have no confidence that it would load to the protection of the Exchequer or the public purse. Many Members are interested in this question of expenditure, and they do not think that any large expenditure ought to be authorised now unless it is most urgently necessary. No case for urgency has been made, and we have to decide now whether to authorise or not to authorise it, whether the Government should or should not proceed with this very large expenditure on an official building scheme. I do suggest that so large a sum
of money should be considered most carefully.

Mr. HURD: One further reason which I venture to put forward is that to start building now would be to do so on the top of the building market. That would be a very uneconomical thing, and it would also apply to the acquisition of the land, if we are to begin to be economical; if we do mean what we say on that subject, we cannot begin too soon. I should like to hear from the Treasury Bench some explanation in reply to the suggestion that this extra staff, of the necessity of which I have no doubt, should be accommodated in huts. I have no doubt that that master of economy, the First Commissioner of Works, intends to reduce bureaucracy in the Manchester area, and that would reduce the number of offices occupied by Government officials, and leave accommodation for others. I cannot see that any case whatever has been made out for this scheme.

Major MOLSON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he made a recent appeal to us, told us when we came into council in the House together we should not vote to authorise new expenditure. He said that we went lobbying outside and speaking outside against expenditure, but when we came into the Council Chamber we voted for it. For that reason I shall now vote against this proposal and against the departments incurring this absolutely unnecessary expenditure. It has been explained to us that this would mean economy. I do not consider, with the great scarcity of labour and the great need for housing, that we can afford it. It would certainly mean a large expenditure of capital before we could achieve any economy. I think we ought to defer it and wait until the country is in a state to withstand extra expenditure. On a Division I shall vote against the Motion. As to the suggestion of consulting with the Minister of Health, we are here considering a financial proposal, and we ought not to shelve our responsibility.

Liuet.-Colonel JOHN WARD: As the current of the Debate seems to be all in one direction, I wish to state my opinion in the opposite direction. If the arguments in this case are listened to in each ease, then it is quite clear, because of the situation with regard to prices and wages and general conditions, all public works of utility are to come to a standstill. It
appears to me to be about the last thing the House ought to do is to curtail works of public utility that will give employment and that are useful. It is quite easy, apparently, to get millions of money voted for purely destructive or unproductive work; when we come to a question of providing decent accommodation for officials of the Government to carry on their work and to voting expenditure to real works of utility and of advantage to the community, that is the sort of thing on which the House is asked to cheesepare in order to fulfil its pledges relating to economy. I shall certainly vote with the Government on this Motion. I represent a trade union, and I can see, if the arguments used in this case are held to be sound and to justify Members to go into the Lobby against the Vote, it will mean that the whole building trade will come to a standstill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] If the argument is sound in one case it is sound in all cases. It is either a rotten argument or else it is a good argument.

Mr. BENNETT: In a case of this kind we have to provide a criterion of necessity and that is not to be sought for in Government Departments. Any Government Department would be glad to have an ox-tension of offices, but the criterion is not what the Government Department says it wants, but can it do without what it is asking for. In this ease does the Government say that it cannot possibly do without this or can it be put off for a year or two? If the answer is that they cannot possibly do without it I will vote for the Government, but if it is said that it is only a matter of great inconvenience if they do not have those additional offices, then that is not enough for me. We all suffer inconvenience. The country suffers inconvenience, and it is not enough to tell us that this is a question of Departmental inconvenience. My vote will be determined by the answer to the question whether they can possibly do without these buildings.

Major HILLS: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Lieut.-Colonel Ward) supports this Vote on the ground that it is a work of utility and will assist the building trade. I do not dispute the second proposition, but I would point out that the whole question is whether this is a work of utility or of luxury. In spite of what has been said I do not think it is a necessary expendi-
ture at this time of great financial stress. The Treasury is the watchdog over the expenditure of all the Departments in the State and it passes the Estimates for the other Departments. Who is the watchdog over the Treasury? Nobody except this House. I am rather afraid that the dog in this case, instead of barking has started to eat until he has taken a rather heavy mouthful and I think it is about time that this Committee should intervene. Surely the Government will not lose but rather gain by accepting what I am sure is the unanimous opinion of this Committee.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I venture to mention what seems to be a large question of policy and one not altogether unfavourable to the Government in this connection. For rather more than a year an important Commission has been considering the question of Income Tax and its collection. The Report is not yet a public document, and it certainly cannot be discussed now in this House. Quito apart from that investigation and Report we are agreed on two things, viz., that a very large number of Inland Revenue officials discharge their duties at the moment under admittedly unsatisfactory conditions and that a considerable amount of revenue is lost to this country. There cannot be the slightest doubt that there would be a common desire to meet both considerations of the kind I have mentioned. There is another point, and one far more important. We cannot in any way anticipate the terms of that Report, but let us assume that it is possible that the number of people affected by Income Tax in this country may be reduced and that there may be far-reaching recommendations regarding administration and collection of the tax, and with those two assumptions we are entitled to say that a case has been made out for at least delay in proceeding with this large and important expenditure. It is quite possible that we may devise at no distant date a better scheme for Income Tax collection. If that is so we have got to consider where the buildings in this country are going to be placed and in what areas they are to be situated and so on. I suggest that these considerations should not be left outside in the discussion which is now taking' place. It is quite possible that the Report on Income Tax will make recommendations which would give the
Government another view in this matter, and I respectfully appeal to them to delay the expenditure until at least that Report has been presented.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Lieut.-Colonel Ward) urged the House to proceed with the Vote on the ground that it was a matter of urgent public utility. I would ask the House to consider which is the greater utility at the present moment, the erection of this costly Government building or to proceed with the housing of the people. A number of us who are interested in housing will in an hour's time be going upstairs to hear a report from the Minister of Health as to the progress which is being made in various housing schemes, and the first thing we shall hear, as we have heard in our weekly conferences, is that building is being held up because of the shortage of material and because of an overwhelming shortage in artificers. We shall hear that thousands of bricklayers cannot be obtained and that over a million men could find employment for the next ten years in the building trades. The Minister of Health has told us we have not sufficient bricklayers and men to carry out the urgent and Prime needs of the country in the way of providing houses for the people. Surely Government offices should stand over until the people obtain houses. We have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and we know that the balancing of the income and expenditure of the country this coming year is a matter of paramount importance. In normal times this Government building might be justifiable, but it certainly ought not to be put up now and this expenditure ought to be postponed. I would appeal to the Government to consider whether this proposal could not be postponed for another year.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. E. WOOD: I notice that the Leader of the House has just entered the Chamber, and I wish to appeal to him if he can see his way to extricate the Committee from a rather difficult position. In a sentence the position into which we have got is this. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of the Committee are not hitherto satisfied that an adequate case has been made out by the Treasury or by the First Commissioner for the sanction of considerable expenditure at this
moment. Those hon. Members who have, in my judgment, made a very fair offer to the Government, which was in effect this, that if the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would be content to receive to-day sanction by way of a Token Vote for his site [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—I think that was the view of what I may call middle opinion—that if he would be content to take sanction for his site and would undertake to come before the House again for further sanction before undertaking any building, on those lines we might perhaps be able to arrive at a settlement. I do not pretend that that meets the whole view, either of the Government or of a great many hon. Members, but I do suggest that it is not asking a great deal of the Government, and docs in practice meet that part of their case which is reasonable, which I think is the case of the site. For myself, I must quite frankly say that after hearing all this discussion and having, I hope, given due weight to the remarks which fell from the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel Ward), as I always should, I should feel bound, if the Government are not able to meet us in this way, to vote against them. I do not do so from any desire to embarrass the Government, but purely from the feeling that, so far, I have not heard a case made out by the Government which, in my view, would justify me in voting for them on this point,

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): Although I have not heard the discussion, I am very familiar with this whole subject, for I would like the Committee to understand that they are in error if they have come to the conclusion that this is the first time that all the difficulties which occur to them had occurred to the Government. It is quite obvious, even to Members of the Government, that there are considerations not only financial, but psychological, that make this kind of building very undesirable if it can be avoided, and we would have less than our share of common intelligence if we did not realise that. As regards this particular building, I was, as it happens, myself consulted by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, because it had to do with the business of the Department with which for two years I was closely connected.
It is the case, as was stated by the Financial Secretary this afternoon, that we recognise without any doubt whatever, that during the War we lost a great deal of revenue because we had to send to take their part in the War the trained men who were necessary to check those multitudinous accounts and make sure that the Government got from every taxpayer what he was entitled to pay, for that meant not only getting the greatest amount of revenue for the Government, but it meant, unless each man paid what he ought to pay, that others would pay more than their share through increased taxation. This was put to me, and I think rightly, by my hon. Friend and by the Inland Revenue Department, as a simple business proposition, on the same lines as the question of sending the men away. Of course, in sending the men away we had no option. We were then fighting for our lives, and money could not come into the account, but now the position is different. It is a question of business, and you put one consideration against another.
This is the position. I am giving the view not only of the present head of the Board of Inland Revenue, a very capable man, with whom I have not the same acquaintance, but of the present head of the Treasury, who was, during my time, head of the Board of Inland Revenue, and they tell us without any doubt that the concentrating of their staff is essential if they are to get the business done in the best possible way. Admitting that, let us look at the position as it strikes members of this Committee. We know perfectly well that not only the Government, but the whole House of Commons are pressing upon the country to-day that the building of houses is the most essential thing for the life of the country, and almost in the same position as the carrying on the War while the War was on. We recognise that, but we have got to put against it the other consideration. It is admitted that as this staff must be turned out; of some buildings that are at present occupied, either an effort must be made to get a new office in which they can be concentrated, or we must take other premises in order to accommodate them, and I ask the Committee to consider what that means. It is quite true that we must have the houses in which people can dwell, but everyone
acquainted with Manchester, or indeed, with any of our big cities, knows that it is with the utmost difficulty that business premises can be got for carrying on the ordinary business of the country. If, therefore, you turn business people out of premises in order to put Government servants in, you are inflicting a real hardship on the industrial life of this country. That is clear, and it is really no good saying we will build nothing but houses. If you cannot allow enough of the other kind of work to go on to enable the business of this country to be conducted, then you will leave people without wages which will enable them to pay the rent of houses—even if the houses were there. That is the position, and I myself am satisfied that, taking all the considerations, financial and psychological, into account, it is in the interest of the nation to get this change made in order to get our revenue properly collected.
I am satisfied of that, but I do not wish—the Government do not wish—to give the impression that we are trying to bully the House of Commons on a matter of this kind. We know very well that not merely is the feeling that the houses must be built, but there is a feeling also that in the present stress of financial conditions we should not spend a penny that we can avoid spending. We realise that, but really, after all, you have got to weigh one consideration against another, and you cannot imagine, without taking particular cases, that the House of Commons can come to this general conclusion, that in no ease is any building to be permitted except for erecting houses. It cannot be done. Very well, then, it is weighing the necessity of this particular case, and that is all. I say that not only the Board of Inland Revenue, but the First Commissioner of Works was himself anxious to stop this building. It was discussed over and over again with the Treasury, and we do think it is good business to do it. Another thing I would like to put before the Committee. Do not mix up one Vote with another. We know that immediately after this Vote there will come another large Vote which the Committee will have to discuss, and when that comes we will deal with it on its merits, but I would like to say to the Committee, to show them that these considerations are fully in the minds of the
Government, that before the discussion had taken place in this House at all, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour had come to the conclusion that the conditions were not now what he hoped they would be at the time the Estimates were framed, and we are prepared—we were already prepared—to take the very course suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. E. Wood) in regard to that Vote.
In this case I think it is worth while to get on with the building on its merits At the same time, we have already said that we realise not only that the building of houses is a necessity everywhere, but that there is no part of the country where it is a greater necessity than in Manchester, and my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner has already stated that in view of that fact he will under take that no building of this kind will go on unless the representatives of the Ministry of Health say that it will not interfere with the building programme. We were prepared to do that—[Cheers]—but I say—and I am not influenced by the ironical cheers which have come, for I rose to say it—I say we do not wish to seem to put undue pressure on the Committee in a case of this kind. The House of Commons know that if they cannot trust the Government in matters of this kind there is only one remedy, and that is? to get a Government which they can trust. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. I say this without the smallest hesitation, that if in a matter of this kind, when the House of Commons has realised that the Government has given it its closest attention, they are not prepared to trust the Government, then the House of Commons must find one they can trust There is no question about that. I know what the feeling of this House of Commons is, and I believe they do trust this Government.

An HON. MEMBER: Did they trust them at Paisley?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps some opportunity will be given to see generally what the situation is, but not immediately. But I do believe that this House of Commons is prepared to trust this Government. I may be mistaken, but that is my view, and I am not the least afraid, after what I have said, that the Government would be defeated in this Division. But my right hon Friend has
already said that he would not do this if it is going to interfere with housing in Manchester. The request made by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. E. Wood) goes a very little further, it only goes the length to which we had already decided to go in regard to the next Vote, and while saying emphatically that we will not allow this Vote to be withdrawn or to be cancelled, I do believe that the loss of time involved if we were allowed to purchase the site, but not to have this power to get on with the building, and putting it in subsequent Estimates later, is not so great as to make it the duty of the Government to insist on building at once. Therefore, I wish to say, on behalf of the Government, that we will not accept the Amendment of my hon and gallant Friend on any terms, but that I am prepared to give the assurance asked by my hon. Friend (Mr. E. Wood).

Colonel GRETTON: I rise to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, being satisfied that the substantial part of the expenditure to which I have objected has been temporarily withdrawn. The House will on a future occasion have the whole matter before it to review, and with the assurance given me by the right hon. Gentleman, I am perfectly satisfied.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am extremely disappointed, and I think the country will be too. One crack of the whip which hon. Members dread more than heaven or hell, one hint that the Government will make this a Vote of Confidence, and they run away like—well. I do not wish to be rude, but at any rate they at once retreat. I rose to protest and to say that it is not my pleasure—speaking for myself and, I believe, for other hon. Members—that the Amendment should have been withdrawn. I tried to get your eye, Mr. Chairman, earlier in the Debate, and I would myself have moved a reduction of the Vote, but was told by an hon. Member that the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), was going to do it. I therefore left it to him. Might I ask your ruling on this matter? I tried to protest and to say that it was not my pleasure at any rate that the Amendment should be withdrawn. Am I in order in moving a reduction of £5 now?
I understand I am in order in moving a reduction of £5, which was originally moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel (Gretton), and I do not propose to recapitulate any of the arguments. We have all heard the case that has been made out. I think the Government defence is very weak. The only argument of the right hon Gentleman, the Lord Privy Seal, that had any meat in it was this, that most of the hon. Members in this House were his—I do not say servile—but his faithful supporters, and if they proved faithless in this matter a General Election would follow. I hope the country will pay attention to this state of affairs. This would not be the first time the Government had been defeated. It has been twice defeated in this Parliament, and nothing has happened. The Government simply laughed at the last defeat. I twice asked what they were going to do.

The CHAIRMAN: This does not seem quite relevant.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £5. We shall now sec in the Division Lobbies what Members are in earnest in their appeal for economy and in their love for the working classes and their desire to give them houses.

Mr. G. THORNE: I only rise because I think there is some misapprehension as to what the right hon. Gentleman promised. If I understood him aright, it was that he would come back to the House with any proposals.

Mr. BONAR LAW: What I promised was exactly what was asked by my hon. Friend, that is, that we will have the right, if circumstances make it desirable, to purchase the site, but we will undertake not to go on with any building programme until it has been fully discussed.

Mr. ACLAND: As the Member who started this discussion yesterday afternoon, and showed how large a sum was intended to be spent in Manchester and how it interfered with houses, I would like to say for one, that I am content with the attitude the Government has now taken, and regard it as rather a triumph for the House of Commons. The House, with one exception, is in agreement that the Government has to a very consider-
able extent given way, and I am willing to accept it.

Major Earl WINTERTON: I do not think the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), unimportant as they may seem, ought to be allowed to go unanswered, as they may be made use of by important bodies outside in order to attack the Government. He is entirely ignorant of the fact that the whole point of the objection to the Estimates as they stood was the large sum of money that was going to be spent in actual building, on two grounds, one, that the country could not afford the expenditure, and the other that by employing men and materials in this building you would lower the slender chances already existing of being able to build the houses required for the workers in the vicinity of Manchester. Those were the two arguments, but, in view of the Fact that the Leader of the House has given way to the objections made on that point, I think, even from an opponent of the Government, it was extremely ungenerous to have made the speech which the hon. and gallant Member has just made. It is easy for him to talk of independence, because he, like the Leader of the National party, belongs to a party of his own. When a Government gives way on the main objections made by the Committee, surely it is not showing a sense of independence, but rather a want of common sense, not to assist in leading the Government into the paths of economy. The immediate cost to the public will be enormously decreased by the decision come to by the Leader of the House, and the Committee need have no fear that this House will agree to this building being commenced unless the bargain is carried out by the Government, as it will be. Therefore, we have made our point, and the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Hull are not only entirely inaccurate, but show that he, not for the first time, has not followed what has taken place in the Debate.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: After the moving appeal made by the Noble Lord opposite, and in spite of the fact that we belong to different parties, I often find myself in agreement with him, added to which I think really that the last remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman did meet us to a very great extent, and, in the hope that on the subsequent Votes we may further press
the Government, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE AND INSURANCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £235,010, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Ministry of Labour, Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain.

The CHAIRMAN: In putting this Vote, I would call attention to the fact that there are two Supplementary Estimates here which account for the total.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Robert Home): I very clearly recognise that, in presenting this Supplementary Estimate to the House, I require to justify the expenditure which is proposed. In any ordinary times that would be true, but the remark is one which has very much greater force to-day than on any normal occasion on which one should have to propose such a Vote. In the first place, the expense is considerable, and, in the second place, the prospect of course of any large building programme is one to which the Committee would not readily assent in such times as we now find ourselves. In particular, I am certain that nobody who is connected with the Ministry of Labour, and knows the difficulty of finding adequate personnel for the accomplishment of the great building programme which the Government has in hand at the present time, would ever, except under great pressure, suggest a programme of building which was going to divert any of that valuable staff from the necessary duty of building houses, for dealing with Government buildings. I appear, however, before the Committee in no apologetic spirit with regard to the present Vote. I hope to be able to justify the proposals which I have made to the satisfaction of the Committee. The amount which is being dealt with on the present occasion is not large in the actual figure, but it comes after a Vote of considerable dimensions which was given last Session. There was a sum of £664,260 originally granted by the Committee, but I would like to remind the Committee
that of that sum £500,000 was in respect of buildings and equipment for the training of discharged sailors and soldiers. For the most part that £500,000 has been expended upon Government factories, and, accordingly, there has been actually no disbursement by the Treasury in so far as these factories were concerned.
The Vote with which we are immediately concerned to-day, on the other hand, concerns an original sum of £102,115, and I wish to make a very brief explanation with regard to that particular sum. It is a sum which was unnecessary for the purpose of the National Health, Insurance Building Scheme, and, accordingly, was transferred from their Vote to the Ministry of Labour. I understand that it was unnecessary that this matter should be explained to the Committee, but we thought it better that everybody should understand precisely what we were doing, and, therefore, we have set it out on the Paper. There are two sums which are not Token Votes. These are £70,000 in respect of the purchase of premises at Leeds, and £32,000 in respect of the purchase of a site at Manchester. I will explain very briefly what those are. At Leeds the Divisional Office of the Ministry of Labour was housed in a sot of buildings called the Quebec Chambers These chambers were about to be sold over our heads, and there were no other premises available. Accordingly we thought it judicious and expedient, and indeed it is absolutely essential, to purchase at the sum set out, £70,000, With regard to the item of £32,000 for the purchase of a site at Manchester, the premises at present occupied in Manchester are to be taken back by their owners, and it would be incumbent upon us in a short period to vacate them. We cannot get any other premises so far in which we can carry on the business of the Manchester Employment Exchange, and accordingly we have to purchase this site. We propose to put up on the site temporary buildings for the accommodation of the staff, for we find that is the only way in which we shall be able to house the staff in order that the necessary work may be carried on.

Major Sir B. FALLE: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea as to how this price has been arrived at?

Sir R. HORNE: I cannot say whether the price has been in any way forced up.
I am not in a position to say that, but it was subject to negotiation, and I have not the slightest doubt but that the First Commissioner of Works made the best bargain possible. The Committee realise that it is a matter of considerable difficulty to secure sites in our large towns at the present time. No doubt we have often got to take the best offers available, and perhaps the price may be a little stiffer than in ordinary times we should have to contend against. In regard to this particular price, I am not in a position to give the immediate information which is asked for by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why is £32,000 asked for now? In the last discussion there was only a token vote for £5. The total estimate here is £132,000, and you are only asking for £32,000.

Sir R. HORNE: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is mixing up the last Vote with this one. This Vote appertains to the Ministry of Labour. In the last vote we were dealing with premises required by the Inland Revenue officers. The two are totally different subjects.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Quite so. But I was only drawing the analogy from the last Vote. Only a Token Vote of £5 was asked for then to enable the Government to purchase the site. Here the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward a similar case, and he is asking for the £32,000?

Sir R. HORNE: The explanation is a very simple one. In the last case the authority still has to acquire the site. In the present instance we have got the site, and the price is £32,000. I turn now to what is represented by the various token votes. If hon. Members will look through the various items of the schedule they will see that there is disclosed a considerable building programme. Let me tell the Committee at once that that programme has been gone into with the greatest possible care, not once, but many times, between the various Departments—the Ministry of Labour, the Treasury, and the Office of Works. It represents the absolute minimum of what we believe ultimately is required for the purpose of carrying on the business of the Ministry of Labour. I should like to say also that it is with no idea of carrying this pro-
gramme out within the year that we have put it forward. The idea in our heads upon this matter has always been that we should carry it out as and when a favourable opportunity offered. At the time we first drew up the programme, I had hoped that the building position would be much easier. I have always had confidence that in the end the force of public opinion would have the effect of bringing large reinforcements to the building labour of the country, and that we should be put in a position to carry out, not only the housing scheme of the Government, but also the full plan required for efficiently carrying on Government administration. I perfectly realise that the Housing Scheme must come first.
In looking back over my correspondence I find that in December I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying to him that, of course, the housing scheme must have first place in connection with all building, but I thought at that time we might be able to go forward with the duty of purchasing the necessary sites, of making the necessary adaptations to buildings purchased, leaving over the question of any new erections for consultation with the Ministry of Labour; and that we should only in any particular instance go forward with new erections if the Ministry of Health was in a position to say that it was entirely consonant with its own plans in that particular district. I realise, however, to the full that the building position has not been bettered much, and I am quite conscious that it is impossible to put this programme before any Committee of the House for immediate inplement. Accordingly I am prepared, as the Leader of the House informed the Committee this afternoon, to ask the Committee only to give me sanction by these Token Votes to acquire sites, to enable me to obtain existing premises where that is necessary, and carry out the necessary adaptations for converting them into suitable offices for Government administration. Accordingly, I have already arranged that particular change of plan on behalf of the Ministry of Labour according to the plan which the Committee suggested this afternoon in connection with the Inland Revenue.
That involves four things. First, I ask the Committee to allow me to acquire sites. It is very difficult, and becoming more so, to acquire suitable sites, for the person who is first in the market is the
man who gets them. Unless we have the power in advance to take up available sites when they become vacant, you find you are forestalled by the man who gets there first. Secondly, I desire the power to buy premises already in existence. You have an example in the fact that in Leeds, when we proposed to acquire sites, they were sold over our heads. In several other places at the present time we are in the position that we are being turned out of premises occupied by us, and cannot find any other suitable premises. It is, therefore, necessary that we should be in the position of being able to erect temporary hutments where these are essential for the carrying on of the work in the district. I would, therefore, ask the Committee to allow me power to do that. In the next place, I desire power to adapt premises wherever that is necessary. At the present time many of our premises are wholly unsuitable for our work. Consequently, there is need for a considerable amount of adaptation. Let me tell the Committee why all this work has become necessary. I should say that we have abandoned the idea of erecting premises until we get the leave of the Committee on the main vote for the next financial year. Abandoning that project relieves the vote of two-thirds of its contemplated expenditure. The reason why change such as I am speaking of is required is to be found in the enormous development that has taken place in the work of the Employment Exchanges. I would remind the Committee that we have been compelled to carry on our work, for the most part, in the original premises which were obtained before the advent of the Labour Department, and at a time the Exchange system was first set up.
These premises were even at the beginning inadequate for their original purpose. Gradually they have had thrown upon them very much more work. For example, in 1912 there was added to the duties of the unemployment exchanges the conduct of the unemployment insurance of one million and a half people. No extra premises were granted. The Department was compelled to carry on, in premises already inadequate, this great new responsibility which had been put upon their shoulders. That was not all. In the course of the War another million
and a half insured people were added to the total. While the War was on there was practically no unemployment, and it was perhaps no great tax upon the employment exchanges. At the present time, however, you have got all the unemployment insurance benefit conducted in these premises, which are still hopelessly inadequate for the purpose.
We have been forced, as I daresay the Committee understands, to take over many temporary promises for the purpose of carrying on the unemployment insurance business, and also the out of-work donation. All the accommodation we have had has been strained to the utmost. Our staffs have been carrying on their duties often under conditions of which I am perfectly certain every Member of this Committee would be ashamed. Accordingly, I venture to make a very Special appeal to the Committee this afternoon in connection with our employment exchanges. We are going by a new Bill, the Second Heading of which has been given by this House, to add other 8,000,000 to the insured people of this country. That will cast a still further burden upon the staffs in those premises of the Ministry of Labour. There are other uses to which the Exchanges are now put. Much conciliation between employers and employed is carried out in the rooms of the Employment Exchanges. All the meetings of the local Unemployment Committees are held there; also many meetings of trade unions. I can assure the Committee that we require very greatly extended accommodation if we are to perform our duties adequately. There is one Exchange I know. It is in my own constituency. The district is a busy one. All the men of Partick have got in the way of an Employment Exchange is one single room with a counter in it. If you compare our Employment Exchanges with those which are being set up in other countries, such as in Germany or America, I think everyone of us would be ashamed of the contrast which is exhibited. We started the idea in this country with the belief that to manage these affairs of the workpeople a, mean dwelling in a mean street was enough. That was a hopelessly erroneous idea. You put the staffs who were conducting this great function under the greatest possible difficulty. You did nothing to attract either employers or workmen to these Exchanges, and the
success which they have achieved is greatly to the credit of those who have worked them. But the time has gone past when you can look at the matter in the way it was looked at in previous years. You must do a great deal in the future to make our Employment Exchanges better. Of that I am convinced.
You must have a great deal more accommodation, where both men and women may go in comfort with the intention of obtaining employment, At present you have some Exchanges in which men and women go in together under the most uncomfortable circumstances. All of that, I am perfectly certain, must be got rid of in the future. Turning to another aspect of the case, we are carrying these places on under extravagant, and not economical, circumstances. In many towns we have a large number of Exchanges which, if they were under one roof, could be worked with far Jess expense than we are compelled to meet to-day. If you can get your staff into one building, you require less staff and less lighting and heating than if you have various buildings separated all over a town. I am sure the Committee in the future will have to face that problem. The Committee which dealt with unemployment donations recommended a far greater concentration of our exchanges in the country, and that will have to come about if we are to carry them on as economically as we might do. With these explanations I ask the Committee to grant the token Vote on the understanding which I have already explained, and I hope I have stated the matter sufficiently for the Committee to understand precisely what we want.
There is a Supplementary Estimate for £245,000 with regard to which I think I ought to give a word of explanation, and it will be found on a separate paper. This item was laid after the original papers were presented, and it refers to a purchase which has only very recently been carried through. It involves a sum of £235,000, which represents the purchase money of a large block of buildings at Queen Anne's Gate. The reason for the purchase of this building is that we discovered it was going to be sold, and that we had no other place anywhere near where we had any prospect of being able to house our staff. These buildings are occupied largely at the present moment
by the Ministry of Labour and one of the sections of the Admiralty. A certain portion of the building is occupied by private tenants.
At the present time a considerable space of it is leased by the Government upon a quarterly tenancy, and if the building had been sold we should have been compelled to vacate a considerable portion of the building, and the rest we could only hold on the terms of our lease. I put it to the Committee, not only that this was an essential purchase, but also that it was a wise one. The full rental of the building, which is represented by this capital value of £235,000, is £20,700 per annum, and the rent which His Majesty's Government alone is paying is over £13,000 per annum; consequently we have purchased the building for rather less than 13 years' rental, and I am certain hon. Members will regard that as, on the whole, a very wise transaction, especially looking to the central position which these buildings occupy and the clear prospect of them rising rather than decreasing in value in the future. I think I have explained all the items with which I have to deal, and I ask the Committee for the Vote containing these Supplementary Estimates.

Major LLOYD-GREAME: The discussions this afternoon have given a good deal of satisfaction to the Committee, and we have succeeded in putting the fear of the Committee into one Department of the State. The better-advised Minister of Labour, who is always better advised than some of his colleagues, has done in advance what the Committee thought should have been done in a previous case. I place down a Motion for the reduction of this Vote in order to stop the erection of any new buildings without the direct authority of the Committee, but there are some other points upon which I should like an assurance. As far as I can understand this Vote, it seeks authority to pay for something which has been done already without authority and, partly, it seeks, by a mere token Vote, to obtain authority to spend a further sum. I hope the Committee will always scrutinise carefully any un-authorised expenditure.
With regard to the authority the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to acquire certain sites, I think the Government and the Committee ought to be guided by two
principles; and one is that we should never build at all unless we are satisfied absolutely that we cannot do without building; and secondly, even if building is necessary, it should be put off until we have a slacker period in the building trade. I think all State building and municipal building should be confined to slack trade periods, and that is all the more necessary to-day. If it be necessary to purchase sites in advance, I want the Ministry to give me some assurance on these points. I know it is important to be able to take advantage of the market, but I do not want it to be thought that because we have consented to buying the sites we have committed ourselves without consultation to the carrying on of large building operations, and I hope we shall get a clear understanding on that point.
A thing which impressed me was that throughout these Debates in Committee in regard to these buildings there has been a singular lack of interest displayed by some departments. I should have thought that the Minister of Health, and other persons more or less concerned with building, would have been present to give us their opinion in regard to these proposals. I do not think it is unreasonable for the Committee to ask for this. I should think that during this time of building shortage no building estimates on behalf of a Government Department should be presented here without the fiat of the Ministry of Health. That would be something more than a mere interchange of Minutes between the Departments, because the Minister of Health would not give his fiat in regard to building in any locality without full consultation with the Local Authority concerned., We passed an Act at the end of last Session which gave power to Local Authorities to hold up unnecessary building wherever they thought it was interfering with housing, and those authorities are not going to exercise that power if they find that the Government themselves are engaging in large building operations in their area about which they have not been consulted. I should like an undertaking that when those estimates come forward again they should be accompanied by the fiat of the Ministry of Health, coupled with an assurance that the Local Authorities in the area concerned have been consulted.
I know that accommodation in many of these Employment Exchanges is inadequate, but there are many areas in which housing is not only inadequate, but is non-existent, and it is the balance of convenience which has to be considered. I want to get another assurance. If it is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to realise the full programme which may be ultimately desirable, I want to know if he is perfectly satisfied that there is no overlapping in Government offices? I ask this question advisedly. It has been represented to me that in the City of Manchester there are offices in which some kind of work is being done by the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Education and one other Government office. In many places I believe there are too many Government offices overlapping in some of our large centres, and their business might be done in the same building. If the authorities in some area see that the Government is making small economies in regard to accommodation I am sure that will go far, not only to increase confidence in the Government's desire for economy, but they will be setting an example which will be followed by local authorities and private in dividuals.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to ask a question with regard to item 10 in the second part of Vote A, which is as follows:
Kingston-on-Thames:—Purchase of site and erection of building for Employment Exchange. Total estimate, £23,000.
To me Kingston-on-Thames calls up visions of house-boats, punts, and girls in muslin dresses, and I never heard of it as a great industrial centre. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Hendon (Major Lloyd-Greame) would have fastened on to this item.

Major LLOYD-GREAME: I did not fasten on to it because I know it is a very considerable industrial area.

6.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have been to Kingston once or twice—[AN HON. MEMBER: "On the river!"]—and it struck me as a place with a large residential population, and not a teeming industrial centre. Obviously the building of offices for £23,000 does not involve very large offices, and surely some small existing building could have been found suitable for the purpose. I hope the right
hon. Gentleman, with his usual courtesy, will tell us what is proposed in this matter. I suppose that, having passed legislation entitling the Ministry to set up offices, we must foot the bill.

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman pays attention only to things which attract him, for he was not quite right in his description of Kingston-on-Thames. As a matter of fact, there are 11,000 industrial workers immediately around that Exchange, and there is need, therefore, for proper accommodation for the work which has to be carried out. There are no existing premises available, and we have had to do the best we could in finding a site with a view to putting up a building.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What are you doing now for those 11,000 workers? I imagine they are not being neglected.

Sir R. HORNE: We have accommodation there at present, but have to give up the premises. It was therefore, necessary to acquire some other place, as otherwise the staff might find itself in the street amongst the hon. and gallant Member's friends. Certain assurances have been asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Lloyd-Greame). In the first place, he suggested that the granting of powers to obtain sites must not be taken out as an authority for erecting buildings upon them, but that the estimates for such buildings must come up here in due course. I entirely agree with that. Of course, no buildings will be put up until they have been provided for in the Estimate and sanctioned. Secondly, it was suggested that, where buildings have to be erected, the Ministry of Health should be consulted; so to make certain that he is not going to be interfered with in the work he has to carry on. I am glad to be able to give that assurance. Thirdly, my hon. and gallant Friend asked that, wherever competition was going on between housing and the erection of Labour Exchanges, housing should have the preference. I entirely agree with that. I do not know whether there is any other point on which an assurance vas asked for?

Major LLOYD-GREAME: Yes, I wanted to make sure that if any Government Department were in occupation of premises in the locality where this Ministry requires accommodation, and
is likely to be evacuated in a short time, the Ministry will give every consideration to the fact that those offices may be available before their proposed new building can be completed.

Sir R. HORNE: I agree that that is an absolutely necessary precaution, and, so far as I am concerned, I will always see that these things are given full consideration to before any new building is embarked upon.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad the Minister of Labour has given the undertaking that the acquisition of these sites will not be made an argument for going on with the buildings, but at the same time I think we ought not to forgot that, the mere fact of acquiring the site is bound to give a certain encouragement to the Ministry to go on building, because the Committee or the House when it comes to consider the question of building will have also to consider what is to be done with the site, supposing the building is not sanctioned. The site will have been acquired, money will have been paid for it, and the question will arise whether the building originally intended to be put upon it should be erected, or whether the site should be disposed of. The experience of most Members of the Committee—and I do not blame the Government for it—is that it is a very difficult thing to get rid of sites. During the time I was a Member of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, when we were investigating the affairs of the Ministry of Labour, we found that very often when it was decided to get rid of a site it was re-sold at a loss, or remained derelict for some years. I think the Committee have been a little bit too inclined to take the assurance of the Leader of the House with regard to the acquiring of sites, for they gave him what he wanted. But I should like to know something of the nature of the sites that are going to be acquired. I ask that information for this reason. When the Select Committee on National Expenditure were investigating the Ministry of Labour we were informed that in many cases officials refused to accept sites except in very prominent positions in the most expensive part of a town. Is that idea still prevalent among them, and is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to point out to his officials that they must be content with sites in less expensive districts?
I find, with regard to the question of overlapping, that in the Report of the Select Committee for 1917 that question is discussed, and it is pointed out that men have been sometimes sent very long distances to do work which only occupies a few days. I want to know if that sort of thing is still going on. The Report in question goes on to point out that it is proposed to institute a Central Exchange in London for the building trade, with rooms which can be used for meetings and by persons concerned in the trade without any charge, except a small sum to cover the cost of light and heating. The Committee were of opinion that such a proposal was unnecessary, and I want to know if any of these sites, the acquisition of which we are now considering, are to be used for such purposes as that? If so, then I think this Committee should not sanction this particular Vote. I am sorry the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Tyson-Wilson) is not in his place. He was a Member of that Committee, and he naturally had considerable knowledge on the subject. His criticisms, therefore, of the methods in which officials of this Department selected sites and erected buildings were very valuable. He told us, too, that the practice to which I referred to just now was quite unnecessary and conflicted at times with the employment part of the Exchange's work. It was a case really of setting up buildings for the benefit of a trade union, and often caused a duplication of work. If these sites are to be used for any such purpose, then I do think that at the present moment, when the financial position of the country is so serious, the Committee should hesitate before giving permission for the undertakings. We ought to refuse to pass this Vote unless my right hon. Friend is prepared to undertake that every care shall be exercised in the selection of sites, and that they will be obtained in the cheapest rather than in the most expensive localities, and will not be used for setting up reading-rooms for the building trade, or for allowing trade unions the use of rooms at a nominal cost for purposes which have practically nothing to do with the objects of the Department. We must not forget that the mere purchase of sites and the building of more commodious offices necessitates the employment of more people to fill those offices, that it then become neces-
sary to find work for the additional staff, and work is very often invented for that purpose. We all know perfectly well that the tendency of heads of Departments is to magnify their office. The larger the staff, the more important people they become, and the more opportunity they have of going to their chiefs and demanding an increase of salary on account of the work which is being done. Further than that, an increase of salary in one Department leads to a demand for increases in other Departments. Under these circumstances, I hope my right hon. Friend will give me the assurances I have asked for.

Mr. KIDD: The House will recognise the enormous work which is being more and more placed on the Labour Ministry, which is bound to result in a very large staff scattered throughout the country and a correspondingly large amount of accommodation for that staff. On the last Vote, the hon. Member (Mr. Graham) indicated that one consideration why delay should take place in the matter of building was that this change in our law in the matter of the collection of revenue would affect the situation in regard to building. Might I entertain the hope that before the Minister of Labour embarks upon any vast building policy a very much larger change in our law will take place? It is hopeless to seek to lay down whether offices should be built in preference to houses, or houses in preference to offices. Behind the whole question lies this: what has occasioned the famine in houses? One would hope that, despite the breakdown of the Select Committee appointed for the purpose, we have in the appointment of that Committee a clear indication as to the suspicion which the Government very legitimately entertains as to the real cause of that famine. If that cause be removed, the men, the money, and the material which we cannot get to-day, we shall get, and the Minister of Labour will be able at that point to proceed with a building policy which will not occasion the Government such an extravagant outlay as the policy pursued at present.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I received with very great satisfaction the assurance that my right hon. Friend does not propose to proceed with his building programme without first coming back to the Committee. I only rise for the purpose of asking him a question, which perhaps
incidentally may help to answer two questions asked by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), namely, what sort of sites are these which the Minister proposes to purchase, and what is he going to do with them if he does not build upon them? My right hon. Friend has explained the difference between Token Votes and non-Token Votes by saying that in the case of Leeds and Manchester, where a large sum was put down, the purchases have already been made. In the other cases, where only a token is put down, the purchases have not been made, and it would be impossible to put down the sum because he does not know how much he would have to pay. My information is that on the first item the purchases have been made and the First Commissioner of Works has already purchased the land.

Sir A. MOND: The hon. Member is mistaken. No pruchase has been made up to the present.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No purchase has been made, but has not the right hon. Gentleman obtained an option?

Sir A. MOND: No, I do not think so. Negotiations are pending and have been pending, but no purchase has been made, and I believe no option has been acquired.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the difference is not very important. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a site has been settled on, though whether the price has been settled or not I do not know. But what sort of site is this? It is a site immediately adjoining the municipal buildings. If the Minister of Labour erects an Employment Exchange on that site, he will block the natural development and extension of the municipal buildings. That answers the right hon. Baronet's first question. The next question he asked may be answered by saying there is a very suitable customer ready to take the site off my right hon. Friend's hands if he does not propose to build on it himself.

Sir F. BANBURY: I gather that only applies to one of the sites in Birmingham. It does not follow that it applies to the other sites.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I quite agree. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if this purchase is completed for this particular site, he will consider
favourably the needs of the local authority, which is tied down to this site by the fact that its own building adjoins it, whereas he is not so tied and might very easily find another site which would be equally good for his purpose in some other part of the city.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I desire to mention the token Vote of £5 and the provisional estimate of £10,000 for the new employment exchange in Edinburgh. I have not the least objection to an extra £10,000 for the Scottish capital. As a matter of fact, we in Scotland will collect every copper we can possibly obtain. But I am in a very great difficulty over the moaning of this Estimate for two reasons. First of all, it is only a short number of years ago since we erected a brand new employment exchange in Edinburgh, and I can only assume that this additional Estimate is for a women's exchange by means of which the work will be separated from the central exchange in which it is now conducted. The work has enormously increased in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and if that is the intention this may be the only opportunity, on the token vote, which gives the right hon. Gentleman power to negotiate regarding the site, to raise the question of sites in Edinburgh, and to make a very strong appeal that no definite step should be taken until the corporation is consulted. As a matter of fact, where the existing employment exchange stands in Edinburgh we have one of the narrowest and most congested thoroughfares in the city, and it has been a civic ideal for years that we should widen that street, no doubt at enormous expense, to provide a thoroughfare between the south side of the city and the business centre lying more towards the north. The Government has in this proposal an unrivalled opportunity of combining with the municipality of Edinburgh to effect a very much needed reform. At present the Ministry of Labour buildings in the Scottish capital are scattered up and down practically every district of the city. I understand the policy of the Department is to centralise those buildings, and certainly to centralise, if they possibly can, the men's and the women's exchanges, in order to reduce the expense of carrying on their work. There is a semi-derelict property in the immediate vicinity of the existing employment
exchange, which I believe it might be possible to obtain. In the second place, there is a distinct possibility of widening this street and effecting a great improvement.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I am sure the Committee will recognise that the Minister of Labour has made a very important concession with a grace which always disarms the Committee. But although important, I cannot help feeling that it is to a very large extent illusory. I have here the last Report presented by the Committee on National Expenditure, and they drew attention to the operations of the Ministry of Labour in these terms:
Your Committee recommend that in the interests of national economy the operations of the several Departments of the Ministry of Labour should be carefully and continuously watched, and that some of them should be closed down at the earliest possible moment, and that the expenditure of the Ministry should be carefully scrutinised from time to time by a Select Committee or other similar body reporting periodically to the House of Commons.
I take it that is precisely what we are doing at present. We are carrying out the recommendation of one of our own Committees. The question was raised by my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) as to the employment of sites which are required by the several Government Departments. It happens that this very point was inquired into a couple of sessions ago by the then Committee on National Expenditure in relation to the Ministry of Labour itself, and almost by chance my eye was caught by these two paragraphs, which exactly bear out what was said by my right hon. Friend:
A site was bought in Manchester in 1912 for an Employment Exchange to deal with the Ship Canal workers at a cost of £3,750. The Board of Trade, which was then concerned, subsequently changed its plans and up to the present time—that is the time when the Committee reported—the Office of Works has been unable to dispose of the site.
Once more:
A site was also bought in Manchester as far back as the year 1910 for £4,000, and adjacent land was subsequently acquired at a cost of £2,365. The Board of Trade, after completion of the purchase, abandoned the scheme and in its place proposed to take some warehouse premises which they considered more suitable. No purchaser has yet been found for the site or for the adjoining land.
I think the Committee on National Expenditure is to be very much congratu-
lated on having exactly previsaged what would be likely to occur. We have had a graceful concession, but is the concession really of very great value? In the first place, these sites are only too likely to be built upon and employed, but where they are not built upon, judging by the report of the Committee, they are likely to remain a drug in the market. The Committee ought to insist that the greatest possible care is taken in the selection and purchase of these sites.

Sir A. MOND: I only rise because I interrupted the hon. Member (Mr. Chamberlain), and I want to correct a statement I made. I was misled for a moment as to what had been happening at Birmingham. The site that he referred to had been in possession of the Government before the war. My Department had been in negotiation with the Corporation, which approached us to see whether we could not meet them and whether an alternative site could not be found which would suit equally well for the purposes of my Department, and would assist the Birmingham Corporation in their not unnatural desire to have a convenient site for the extension of their municipal buildings. Those negotiations are still pending. It would be impossible to give any undertaking to give up a site in the Government's possession unless an equivalent equally useful can be found.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: I was a member of the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on National Expenditure which dealt with the question of labour exchanges and the question of sites. It seems to me that the Department responsible for the working of the labour exchanges buy land, do not use it, and then do not care whether they dispose of it or not. It would be a far better proposition to get rid of the sites they have than to acquire fresh sites. I remember perfectly well that we were told by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor that the sites that had been bought were not suitable now, and when asked why they were not suitable, he said they wanted the labour exchanges in the main streets of our big towns. I do not think it is a wise plan to have the labour exchanges in the main streets. It might be advisable to have the exchanges in a street immediately off the main street, but they ought to be in a quiet street, where there is not a great deal of traffic, and where
people, if they wait outside, could wait without interfering with the pedestrian traffic on the side walk. I was rather struck by what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the expansion of the work of the labour exchanges. The Labour party hope, but we may be wrong, that in the immediate future we shall have a better organisation of industry, and that there will be nothing like the number of people requiring unemployment benefit or signing on at the labour exchanges as is the case to-day. We may be wrong, and I am afraid we shall be wrong. We want to reduce unemployment to a minimum, and if it is reduced to a minimum we shall not want a largo number of labour exchanges. We have to recognise that under the new Bill which has been introduced, some of the bigger societies, in fact, any society, can contract out of the unemployment benefit If a big society like the miners contract out of the Bill, they will not make use of the labour exchanges for the purpose of unemployment benefit. It is quite possible that other large societies will also contract out. If that is so, instead of an increase of staff at the labour exchanges, the staff might be reduced.
Let me point out why there has been an expansion of the labour exchanges. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor induced some of the large societies to make it a condition that their men who were out of employment should sign on at the labour exchanges. In the Manchester district an arrangement was entered into whereby a largo number of employers in that district agreed to engage only those people who signed on at the labour exchanges. Although a man might be seeking employment and an employer was willing to give him employment, he must go to the labour exchange and report there before the employer could give him what he wanted. That meant a loss of labour and a loss of income to the person unemployed. Labour exchanges undoubtedly do bring the employers and the workmen into closer touch, and in quicker time than in the old days; but the labour exchanges have done their utmost to magnify their importance. I will not go further than that. A large number of workmen in the steel trade even now, after the exchanges have been in operation eight or nine years, object to going to the labour exchanges to sign on. I know members of my own society who
have forfeited not only their State insurance benefit, but the unemployment benefit of their own society before they would go and sign on the labour exchange. It may be foolish on their part, but there it is.
When investigating the expenditure of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade, the Sub-Committee on National Expenditure, of which I was a member, was very much struck by the heavy expenditure in connection with that Department. We were certain that there was extravagance. When we investigated the accounts and procedure of the labour exchanges, we found that on the staff there was one person engaged to find another person a job. That is what it worked out at. I know there is a very largo number of staff of women and men employed at the offices at Kew who are not engaged in finding employment for people, but are dealing with the insurance books, etc., but, taking the whole staff, we found that there was an average of one official employed by the labour exchanges to each person for whom employment was found during the year. If the labour exchanges were run on more economical and more businesslike lines, a considerable amount of expenditure would be avoided. There are a large number of labour exchanges throughout the country who find very little employment for very few people throughout the year. I have given the hon. Gentleman several instances. On the question of buildings and the selection of sites the Labour Ministry would be well advised to go slow. If they would bend their minds to doing something to organise industry on better lines and thereby avoid unemployment they would be doing good in two directions—they would be reducing the national expenditure and at the same time giving people a proper opportunity of earning their living.

Major BARNES: The Minister of Labour, whose efforts in this House and outside we all appreciate, has sailed into calm after a storm. I would like to examine for a moment the reason he gave for furling his sails. He told us that it had not been done on account of the event which had preceded this Vote. I know that he has too much courage to let his opinion be affected in that way. He lives in the midst of turbulence and gets through it by the exercise of the
great qualities and tact for which he is pre-eminent. He told us that he had modified his Estimates because the expectation that he had formed when he framed the Estimates had not been realised. That explanation rather puzzled me. He says that when he framed the original Estimates he thought the force of public opinion was going to bring large reinforcements to the building labour of this country; but that he had been disappointed in that expectation. I find a little difficulty in understanding exactly what he means by that. For twenty-five years I have been engaged in building and in close touch with building labour, and I cannot understand how public opinion was going to produce more bricklayers, carpenters, joiners, plumbers, or any of the other artisans engaged in building. These men are only produced by training. They are men who have to go through an apprenticeship and who require considerable skill for the purpose of carrying out their craft. What public opinion has to do with that I do not quite see. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what he had in his mind when he framed the Votes. During the last six months or so there have been many suggestions made that the trade unions are standing in the way of building being done and that in some way or other they impede building operations. That may have been the point to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring, and he may have been expecting that public opinion would bring about a change in the situation. If that was the sense in which the words were used, what were the grounds for hoping that public opinion would have that effect, and if there were good grounds, what is it that has prevented their realisation? He said that part of his business is to acquire a great, number of sites and afterwards to proceed with the erection of buildings. With regard to sites, he told us that he had found very considerable difficulty in obtaining them. If my recollection serves me, we were engaged last year in passing an Acquisition of Land Bill, the object of which was to overcome this difficulty. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in his difficulties, he has had any resource to the provisions of that Act.

Sir R. HORNE: That Act is no use for this particular purpose.

Major BARNES: I am surprised to learn that. I thought it was an Act that covered all the purposes of Government Departments.

Sir R. HORNE: It only deals with the question of compensation; it does not give me any power to acquire a site. It deals only with the question of compensation.

Major BARNES: I should have thought that compensation naturally arises on the acquisition of a site. However, I gather that the Act is of no use to the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir R. HORNE: Not for this purpose.

Major BARNES: That is unfortunate, because a great many hopes were aroused in the country that the Act would really be effective. We are now informed that it only deals with compensation when you have taken land, but that it gives you no power to take it. Therefore, it is no use to the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and we may presume it is no use to the Government or to any of their Departments. Although the right hon. Gentleman is the head of a Government Department, he is not immune from some of the experiences which befall private individuals. He finds himself the tenant of a building. He gets comfortably settled, and then he discovers the building has to be sold. That happens to private individuals. Many of us are getting complaints from people in our constituencies who find themselves in these unfortunate circumstances. In consequence the Minister has to buy. On that point I would like to call his attention to the purchase of Queen Anne's Chambers, Westminster. I thought he had made a remarkably good bargain when he said that he had bought that building on thirteen years' purchase on their rental. I thought that if the right hon. Gentleman was going to leave his present position and lake up a position as a great estate agent, and he could act for his clients in the way he has acted on behalf of the Government in connection with this purchase, he ought to reap a very rich emolument from it. But when I look at the particulars contained in this document, I find that what has been purchased is simply the leasehold interest.

Sir R. HORNE: Nine hundred years' lease.

Major BARNES: I am very glad that you have elicited that information, and
I beg to continue my congratulations. In the absence of that information it was not possible to tell whether the right hon. Gentleman had made a good or a bad bargain. There is in existence in the Inland Revenue a Valuation Department. Is that in the same position as the Acquisition of Land Bill, and of no use to the right hon. Gentleman? To-day a question was asked as to whether in certain circumstances a local authority might have the assistance of the Valuation Department, and it was said that they could not. In making these extensive purchases of land, has the Department of the right hon. Gentleman the advantage, if it is an advantage, of the services of the Valuation Department?

Sir A. MOND: I will reply if the hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity.

Major BARNES: Perhaps I may have the answer now, as it may prevent me from pursuing the point.

Sir A. MOND: My Department has valuers attached to it, and in the Inland Revenue Department there are skilled valuers, and we do take advantage of their opilnions, and a very great advantage it is.

Major BARNES: About an hour ago, the right hon. Gentleman was expatiating on the advantage of centralising and coordinating Departments. It is a curious position for everyone of these Government Departments to be running its own separate staff of valuers when the Inland Revenue has got a great Valuation Department which covers the whole country. Every building, every piece of land, is situated somewhere, and that somewhere is in the area of one of the official valuers of the Valuation Department. I do not understand why it should be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman's Department, or any other Department of the Government, to have its own separate staff of valuers who cannot have the local knowledge possessed by the men on the spot. It is not the best arrangement either from the point of view of economy or efficiency. Take, for example. Item 16, of which I can speak with some knowledge—Newcastle-on-Tyne—one of the divisions which I have the honour to represent, in which the right hon. Gentleman has purchased a site of which
the price is not given, on which we propose to erect new buildings.

Sir R. HORNE: We have not yet purchased the site in Newcastle. We have not been able to get one. We wish to purchase a site and have put down a Vote.

Major BARNES: In Newcastle you have stationed in the district a valuer of the Inland Revenue Valuation Department, a post which I occupied myself before I came into this House. There is a man who knows what is the value, who is an official of the Government, and whose opinion it would be wise to consult. I gather that instead of that being done the procedure is for some other valuer—I have no doubt a very skilled efficient person—who is attached to the office of the Commissioner of Works, who is up in London and cannot have the local knowledge of the land and its value possessed by the local valuer, is employed. That seems to be one of the grossest examples of what I may call centralisation. One hears that the country is going to have the misfortune to lose the Minister for Labour from the position which he occupies at present, but if he continues that position, or in whatever other great office he may find himself, I would ask him to give consideration to this point of view. We have learned from the Minister of Health that in acquiring land for housing schemes a considerable saving, amounting to 33 per cent. on the purchase price, has taken place through the employment of the valuation department, and in offering this suggestion I think that I am doing something in the direction of securing economy and efficiency.
Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman replies he may give us some idea as to the class of buildings that is being erected up and down the country. I gather from him that it varies according to the size of the town. In every place the general plan probably would be alike, but I gather that the position of the building, and probably the general expense of the structure, apart from actual requirements, will vary according to the importance of the town. I am one with him in thinking that these labour exchanges should not be mean buildings in a mean style. I agree that they perform very important functions, and should be worthy of the work which they will carry out, but I am not quite sure that the policy which he advocated rather strongly, the
policy of centralising the whole of the Labour Exchanges—I gather that was his policy in a great city like mine or other big places; to concentrate all the Labour Exchange agencies in one building in the centre of the town—is the right policy. It certainly enables, in a large and important city, a large and important building to be put up. But, taking into account the purposes for which the Exchanges are to be used, probably a great deal might be said for having the places where application has got to be made in the district in which the men themselves are employed. It would lead to economy, as land in the neighbourhood would be cheaper and the class of buildings would not be expensive. No one wishes more success than I do to the operations which are about to be taken in connection with procuring employment.

Sir A. MOND: In view of the request of the hon. Member to answer his question about valuation, perhaps I may explain that we have in our office land officers who purchase land who are skilled valuers. They consult on all important occasions the Inland Revenue officers. Naturally enough, so far as provincial accommodation is concerned, they usually ask the advice of our district surveyors and architects. They naturally consult with the Inland Revenue officers of the district. We are making use of every machinery which the hon. Member would like us to make use of. With regard to decentralisation, I think that mine is the most decentralised office under the Government. All the points to which he has referred are covered already in our present practice, and very great value and economy result from the services of the Inland Revenue officers and their great knowledge of the value of land in various localities throughout the country.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Some of us were surprised—I certainly was—to learn that the operation which my right hon. Friend proposes to undertake in spending so large a sum of money on the sites for building purposes is not backed up by statutory powers under the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919. That is perfectly correct, because the first Section says
where under any Statute, whether passed before or after the passing of this Act, land is authorised to be acquired compulsorily.
So unless he has specific statutory powers he is not able to exercise
the provisions of the Act passed last Session. This is a matter of great public importance. The Postmaster-General, whenever he undertakes the acquisition of sites for a specific purpose, nearly always gets an Act passed to enable him to exercise the powers in that way. There is no reason why this Department should not ask the House to give it statutory power to carry out these very large undertakings which are proposed. I am sure that he will meet with very little opposition, and by such a Statute he would be clothed with all the powers of the Act of 1919.
I would ask my right hon. Friend to institute inquiries as to the number of premises which are still in occupation of his Department, and which are urgently required, and often asked for by prospective tenants or former tenants, who cannot get them back again. I have an instance, which I will pass to my right hon. Friend, of a case within Westminster itself, in which people have tried over and over again to get possession, but week after week, month after month passes without effect. The premises are quite idle. The former tenant wishes to occupy them again, and is unable to get them.

7.0 P.M.

Sir R. HORNE: I appreciate the changed atmosphere in this Debate compared with that of a Debate last week. On that occasion I was contending with all the power at my command with right hon. and hon. Members opposite that there should be continued to the Ministry of Labour powers to acquire buildings and lands compulsorily for the purpose of training disabled soldiers, and upon that occasion I met with very considerable opposition. Indeed, the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) was almost strident in his criticism of us for daring to think of carrying on in peace time the emergency powers of the War period, and he expressed his horror at the way in which the Government used such powers. This afternoon the tone is entirely different. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) not only said that I ought to have these compulsory powers, but he urges me to bring in legislation on any occasion when land is required. Many valuable hours of Parliamentary time would have been saved if hon. Members-opposite had been ready to take that point of view last week.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The suggestion I am now making is a permanent policy.

Sir R. HORNE: Nothing could be more urgent than the carrying on of the powers which we have for the moment in regard to the acquiring of buildings and land for training disabled soldiers. I cannot understand why it was, if that was the point of view of hon. Members, they did not say "We are perfectly delighted with your acquiring these powers if only you will make them permanent." I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the sudden conversion which has taken place. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Post Office has an Act giving compulsory powers passed on each occasion when it is going to acquire premises. It may be 80, but I have never heard of it. I have inquired of those around me and I cannot find that it is the practice. In any case, the situation is that we have to go into the competition of the open market if we are going to acquire sites for employment exchanges. I am sure my right hon. Friend is well aware that the acquisition of sites is a very difficult matter and one for prolonged negotiations. At present, when trade is moving forward in the great centres of industry, the competition for sites is very keen. It is for that reason that I put before the Committee the necessity for our being clothed with power to deal with the site question, always keeping it clear that that does not necessarily commit the Committee to the policy of building upon them all the structures which are adumbrated in the present Schedule. I turn to the complaint made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). I confess it always surprises me that he bears up so wonderfully against the world, considering the extremely severe view he always takes of human nature.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid it is only too well founded.

Sir R. HORNE: To-night once more he exhibited the suspicion which inhabits his breast. The possibility of any human institution being trusted—

Sir F. BANBURY: No, no, the Government.

Sir R. HORNE: I admit there is a difference. I will say any Government institution being trusted to function either with zeal or with efficiency—

Sir F. BANBURY: We admit the zeal but not the efficiency.

Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Baronet's attitude was that the Employment Exchanges were filled with people who were more anxious to magnify their office than to do any really serious work. I have not had a very long experience of the Employment Exchanges—about seven months. I am perfectly certain that there has been no harder worked body in the country than the staff of the Employment Exchanges during that period. I noticed that in all the diatribes made against the Employment Exchanges the accusation was concerned with matters of the past and reports of previous years—with something that was done in 1912.

Sir F. BANBURY: 1917 and 1918, the reports were. The land was bought in 1912 and had not been sold in 1918. it was in Manchester, too.

Sir R. HORNE: I understand that. What I am dealing with is the fact that all of these accusations were in regard to things done in the past, when the Labour Department had not been long in existence. You need have no such fears on the present occasion. It is proposed that all these matters shall be dealt with again when the main Estimates come on in the next financial year, that is to say, in the next few months. There is no possibility of that happening which the right hon. Baronet fears—that you may have land held up derelict for many years. We shall discover in the course of the summer months whether the Committee is prepared to grant us the power to erect these structures. The whole matter will then be determined.

Sir F. BANBURY: Will you not have bought the land in the meantime?

Sir R. HORNE: We propose to acquire the sites that seem most necessary. Should the Committee think these sites are unnecessary, I do not think there will be any difficulty in disposing of them if they are found to be either not very suitably placed or of a character which the Committee does not wish for. I have said how completely people's minds are dwelling in the past in these matters. Even so well-informed a Labour representative as the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. T. Wilson) stated that inquiry had shown that only one man got employment for every man employed in the Employ-
ment Exchange service. Either that remark should not have been made at all, or else regard should have been had to present-day conditions. The people who are concerned at the Exchanges with finding employment number altogether, in the localities and districts, something like ten thousand, but the number of places found for people during the last twelve months was well over one million. I think it is regrettable that that kind of attack should be made without some observation of the real facts.

Mr. SPENCER: Was not the remark one which applied to certain districts? It was not a general case; it referred to a specific district.

Sir R. HORNE: Even if I am wrong I think it was a very ungenerous and a very unfair reflection on the work of the employment exchanges. The right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) wanted some assurance that the sites chosen were the cheapest. I agree that we should acquire sites as cheaply as possible, but you may purchase cheap sites very dearly. I am confident that the exchanges have suffered in the past because the original premises were bought far too cheaply, and it is equally certain that the usefulness of exchanges has been very seriously impeded by that fact. The right hon. Baronet's next point was with regard to the use to be made of these premises. He was evidently perturbed by the fact that meetings of various organisations were held at the exchanges and that only a nominal price was charged. I am of opinion that when the premises are there, if they can be made to serve a useful purpose, even at a nominal price, in the evenings when organisations wish to have them and they are not wanted by the staff, the State ought to give an opportunity for their beneficial use in that way. I think it would be a retrograde step to say that you will no longer allow a trade union to hold its meetings in the premises. The premises are open equally for all other organisations connected with industry, to organisations of employers as well as to trade unions. Many useful meetings for conciliation purposes are being held. I should like to express to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Major Barnes) my gratitude for the very kindly observations he has made with regard to myself. So far as Newcastle-on-Tyne is concerned, the position is—

Sir F. BANBURY: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes to that subject I would like to say, in reference to the use of the exchanges for meetings, that what I quoted from was this:
The sub-committee were informed that between 2,000 and 3,000 branches of unions had the use of rooms in exchanges for the purpose of holding meetings, for which only a nominal charge was made, and that the Government was being continually pressed to extend the accommodation.
What I wanted to know was whether any of these premises are going to be provided merely for the giving of accommodation for these trade unions.

Sir R. HORNE: No expense is being incurred merely for the purpose of providing meeting rooms. As I understood him, the right hon. Baronet went a good deal further in his speech.

Sir F. BANBURY: Provided that the use of these rooms is only given in the evening, when they are not required for other purposes.

Sir R. HORNE: Of course, necessarily, they cannot be used while the staff is occupying them.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what revenue the State derives from the trade unions for the use of these rooms?

Sir R. HORNE: As the hon. Baronet has stated, the charges are very nominal. I am speaking merely from recollection, but I think the use of a room can be had any evening for a meeting of a trade union executive for 2s. 6d. I am afraid I cannot give any figure, but they are equally open to all. I regret that any suggestion has been made that trade unions are favoured in this matter. They happen to be bodies which meet more frequently, and whose organisation is more localised than that of any other bodies. Beyond that, it is unjust to say that those rooms arc; not equally open to all.

Mr. JESSON: Is it not a fact that the argument put forward to induce the trade unions to go to the Employment Exchanges to hold their meetings was that it would attract them from the public-houses?

Sir R. HORNE: Well, I would not put it like that; but it is perfectly true that often no other rooms are available for
such organisations. It seems to me perfectly obvious that if you wish to make your Employment Exchanges as popular meeting places as you can, that as long as you are doing that you are doing great service to the country. With regard to Newcastle-on-Tyne, the position there is that the headquarters for the district are divided up into three separate sections, because they cannot all get the accommodation in one set of premises. We wish, ultimately, to remedy that, and it is with that view that we hope afterwards to obtain the opportunity of acquiring a site and putting up buildings where they may all be housed together. At the present time, they are working on very uneconomical lines, and I am perfectly certain the State will save in the long run if we get the opportunity of building such premises. I do not think I need say any more about the acquisition of land, because my right hon. Friend opposite explained exactly how the provisions of that Act stand.

Sir F. BANBURY: Can we be informed if those two sites, bought in 1910 and 1912, and which were unsold in 1917, have been sold, or whether they are still unoccupied?

Sir R. HORNE: I am informed by the First Commissioner of Works that no sites have been sold that were in the possession of the Government.

Sir F. BANBURY: Will that be brought to the knowledge of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who proposes to spend £103,000 in buying a site in Manchester?

Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has, no doubt, hoard the hon. Baronet's question, and is now fully apprised of the fact. I think these are all the points with which I have been asked to deal, and I hope it will be possible for this discussion to end very soon.

Captain W. BENN: I would not have ventured to take up the time of the Committee, but the right hon. Gentleman has made a pointed reference to some remarks of mine with regard to the powers that have been given to his Department. I understand that what he meant when he spoke about specific acts was this, that he would have no objection, if the Department desired to acquire sites, to the
proposal coming before Parliament and to its being decided by Parliament. That is very different from endowing the Department with general powers to requisition anything that they think they may need. He has made great play with the fact that we objected to him having some specific powers under the Defence of the Realm Act. I would point out that it was the extension of those powers that we objected to, and I would remind him of his own defence, which was that he must have these powers in order to acquire sites and buildings for the purpose of carrying on his work with the labour exchanges.

Sir R. HORNE: 2 AB.

Captain BENN: I will read it:
It shall be lawful for the Commissioners of Works to take possession of any land, including buildings thereon, which the Minister of Labour may certify to be required for the purpose of accommodating the staff of the Ministry of Labour.

Sir R. HORNE: But my hon. Friend seems to be forgetting that these were not the powers that were continued. These were the powers that belonged to the Ministry of Pensions, and which the Ministry of Labour might exercise. I was not dealing with the Labour Exchanges, but only with the powers obtained from the Ministry of Pensions.

The CHAIRMAN: This is really a diversion.

Captain BENN: I understand the limits of Order, which are that we may discuss whether or not it is necessary to take the money now on this Estimate. I was endeavouring to direct the attention of the Minister to these powers. I know I cannot refer to the continuation, but that does not matter. But he has these powers, and until the War is declared to be over by Order in Council he has the powers under 2 A.B. Then the right hon. Gentleman says that unless we give a Token Vote on these matters of £5 each he will not be able to get the sites which he requires for carrying on his work. I will say why I think that is bad. The Leader of the House made a speech earlier in the Debate in which he said that they proposed on this Vote to give an undertaking to the House not to erect any buildings or to start any new works until the total Estimate had been passed by the House. That I understand to be the
undertaking, and the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong. It is that the Government have undertaken in respect of these buildings marked A on pages 11 and 12 not to start any new work on them until the total Estimates have been passed by this House.

Sir R. HORNE: What I have undertaken is not to go on with the erection of any new buildings until the Committee have dealt with them upon the main Estimates for the next financial year, but I had to have a Token Vote because I want powers to acquire sites and premises already in existence where they are necessary; to acquire huts for the purpose of erecting them upon sites where we have been turned out, as we have in many instances, or are going to be, from our present premises and can find no others, or powers to adapt premises for the purposes of the Labour Exchange.

Captain BENN: I quite understand what has been undertaken. It is that the usual practice of the House shall be adhered to next Session—it was not last Session—and that no new work shall be started until the main Estimate, that is the total Estimate, has been passed by this Committee, or until the 31st August, when it was passed automatically by the Committee. But that does not really meet our objection to this. Our objection is that we are passing sums of £5 each for these buildings and that we have not the least information—on the buildings of course we shall have the Estimate with regard to the site. Many old buildings have been referred to and alterations are being made, and we are doing this without being told in the least what sums of money are being spent. It is true we authorise it by a Token Vote, but we do it completely blindfolded and in complete ignorance of what sum we may be committed to spend. Even as regards the buildings on which we had a definite understanding we know that once we have given the Government the right to acquire a site we shall be in an extremely weak position when they come to us and say, "You authorised us to buy the site, which was adapted to a certain plan of building, and now you cannot possibly withhold permission from us to put up the building." The fact of the matter is that under the innocent guise of passing votes of £5 each we are
authorising an expenditure which may amount—according to these calculations I think it is to be about £l,000,000—when the whole thing is complete it may amount to very many millions. This is the Committee of Supply of the House of Commons, which is supposed to and does desire to exercise meticulous care over the expenditure of the country.

Mr. BILLING: If one may say so with all respect, it was a little unfortunate that the Minister for Labour took such an early opportunity of replying. I have generally found that if a Minister replies to his critics within 15 minutes of making his original speech the Debate takes longer than if he gave other speakers an opportunity to put all the questions which they wish to ask before he rises to reply. I say that in no offensive manner, because there is no one who appreciates the courtesy which this particular Minister extends to the House more than I do. But we must not be led away by his charm of manner to do anything which our constituents might consider unjustified. We are told that it is quite all right and that we should trust the Government, but presumably we must exorcise a little reason as well as trust, and we ourselves have a certain trust reposed in us in other places, and we cannot take this blindly. I am entirely opposed to this Vote. I oppose it mainly because I do not think it is the business of the Government to set up further bureaucratic undertakings, especially when it comes to acquiring land and buildings. We are so urgently in need of houses for the working classes at the present time, and we want so urgently every brick and every labourer who will put one brick on another, that I think it is wrong in principle that we should start now or commit ourselves to a big building programme to provide for the very unemployment which, providing that the other work is carried on, would to a large extent be diminished. Does the right hon. Gentleman give us to understand that unemployment is likely to be worse in the future? We have managed so far with the present accommodation and, assuming that we have to put up with it, is it going to be so bad in the future that we must set up those palaces all over the country to deal with it? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman make an appeal to the trade unions in this matter? What bettor organisation have
we in this country than the trade unions? Surely they have proved on many occasions, when they have fought and beaten the Government, that they are a more efficient organisation than the Government itself. Why not take advantage of that efficient organistion? Why not say to the trade unions, "For all these years you have been employed on more or less destructive work, that is, forcing the hand of the Government by the threat of withdrawing your labour."—and it has done an enormous amount of good, because the Government need very drastic action before they can be wakened up to take any very useful step. Why does not the Government say to them, "Use your trade unions as a vehicle with which to provide employment." It might be thought that by doing so they would be strengthened, but in that event the Government would be strengthening a very good cause for a very good purpose. We are asked to Vote more money, not for houses fit for heroes to live in, but a couple of millions to erect barracks for bureaucrats. There is constantly fresh evidence of more and more officials, and then other officials to look after them, so that it looks as if in a little while it will be difficult to find a common or garden civilian in this country. I think the House ought to do everything in its power to sweep away officialdom not only from the point of view of economy, but also from that of personal liberty. The Prime Minister made an appeal to the country over 12 months ago on a great democratic wave and yet we have had this vast army of officials, and the people of the country are beginning to appreciate that those officials have got to be paid out of taxation which comes out of the pockets of the people. I can assure the Committee they are not taking at all kindly to that. I am not at all carried away by the more or less sensational articles in the Press, but one feels this matter in his pocket which, next to the heart, is the most sensitive part of one's anatomy
The whole question is whether we shall or shall not vote this sum of money which means hundreds of thousands of pounds. The items may not seem large but in the total they are a very great deal. Will the right hon. Gentleman not regard the setting up of these exchanges as temporary? This grave unemployment evil will pass away from us and our social system may
so change that we shall not require to have a vast army of men in order to provide work for other men who, under our present extraordinary system, are not able to find work. If these men have to be employed, what about the Army huts which we were told were good enough to be converted into houses for returned soldiers. Officers and men have lived in them for years and surely they would make admirable meeting places for trade union officials and for housing Government officials. The right hon. Gentleman said that we must make these places attractive in public thoroughfares. I doubt if he would advance that proposition to an audience o£ British taxpayers at the present time. I might ask, if you want to make them attractive, why not have a cinema. We see crowds of people in queues at early hours of the morning outside cinemas when presumably they might be usefully employed, and some of them may have come from the Labour Exchanges. The Committee, so far as I can judge, does not favour the idea of giving a blank cheque which commits us to the purchase of sites in expensive positions all over the country. If they got the power to find the sites the buildings are going up, unless the Government falls in the meantime. That being so, we had better decide the question now, and not simply regard the promise not to erect the buildings as a debating point or a slight Parliamentary advantage. That may look well from the point of view of the strength of the Committee to be read in the newspapers, but I suggest that the Minister should now tell us that if he gets permission to buy these sites it is his intention to carry the matter right through and not come back to the House for further permission, and that is the question we should decide.

Major HAYWARD: There is one point which I should like to sec cleared up. The right hon Gentleman is asking for power to acquire various new promises and to extend existing premises. During the course of this Debate mention was made as to power under the Land Acquisition Act to acquire land compulsorily. Has tht right hon. Gentleman to go into the open market and acquire the premises and sites at the present inflated value, and is the Government without any compulsory power for the acquisition of these premises? If that be so, all I can suggest
is that the Government were entirely lacking in foresight when they brought in the Land Acquisition Bill last year in not providing for such a very necessary matter as this, as they must have had in contemplation the purchase of these premises. I would ask the Government in that case to accept the suggestion to bring in a Bill to obtain statutory powers to give them compulsory power to acquire this land, and use the machinery of the Land Acquisition Act for that purpose.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not join in the criticism of the hon. Member who has just spoken, and I do not suggest that the Government should take further bureaucratic powers to seize compulsorily sites, whether suitable or unsuitable, at the whim of some particular person. We have heard before most of the criticism of the labour exchanges as regards extravagance and the results of the work of those exchanges. Economy is vastly important at the present time, and yet we are asked to vote £102,000 straight away and to add another £800,000 for the purpose of buying sites in expensive places. We are then told we are not obliged to build on them yet, and that is the answer of the Government seriously put forward as an excuse for an Act of great extravagance at the present moment. The Government say, "If you vote this we shall not build upon the sites till next July or August, when the matter will come before the Committee." That really is not a defence worthy of the Government. We know that the matter may never be discussed at all in the House again. There is, for instance, a sum of £22,000 for a little place like Kingston with about 11,000 inhabitants.

Sir R. HORNE: Far more than that.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I may be inaccurate in the figures. I feel strongly that every one of us ought to make some sort of protest if we genuinely desire economy.

Mr. KILEY: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has satisfied himself that the proposed works are absolutely essential in all cases. I notice that no less that three new buildings are required in my own constituency, and the reason why I put the question is because of an experience in my own constituency a few weeks back. During the
last 12 months the labour exchange has been unduly overcrowded, due largely to the large number of men who have been drawing the unemployment dole, and the exchange people found it necessary to apply to the local authority for the use of a portion of the free library adjoining. The library committee, being anxious after a time to get rid of them, asked them to quit the premises, and the manager applied to the Office of Works for a new habitation. He went along under D.O.R.A. to a building with six or eight times the accommodation he was called upon to surrender, and demanded those premises. As a trustee, I failed to see any reason why he should have that extension, only I was threatened with D.O.R.A., but fortunately another Government Department, which really did need the premises, had priority, and by those means I was able to checkmate the Office of Works in obtaining premises for the Ministry of Labour which were six or eight times larger than was necessary. If that is an example of what is going on elsewhere, I shall certainly have to vote against this Estimate.

Mr. STEVENS: I wish to call attention to item 15—
Manchester—purchase of site and erection of new building for divisional office and Employment Exchange. Total estimate, £132,000 (provisional).
The sum required is £32,000, and I take it that that £32,000 is for the site. It is obvious that in the centre of a city like Manchester there must be an employment exchange, but why put the divisional office in the centre of the city, where the expenses are so great? I can offer my right hon. Friend a suggestion which will not only meet this necessity immediately, but also the necessity of the Inland Revenue Department. Immediately outside the city there are buildings, more than one, but I speak of one that I know exceedingly well, that have just been vacated in the last six months as hospitals—beautiful buildings. The one I am thinking of had 125 beds in it and it will accommodate all the requirements of the Labour Divisional Office, and also of the Revenue people, excepting those particular officials who must be in the centre of the City to see their clients. It is a building with huge entertaining rooms and no loss than 40 bedrooms. Those two authorities, if they were joined together and took such a
building outside the City for divisional work, would do well, and in the City the existing Inland Revenue place is quite sufficient for an Employment Exchange and also for the Inland Revenue.

Dr. MURRAY: I think the Minister for Labour has been quite too modest, perhaps due to the fact that he has been praised too much, but I see in the White Paper there is an anticipated saving on Sub-head P of £102,105. I think the House would like to know how my right hon. Friend has effected this saving. I do not know whether it is like a farmer's loss, for they say that farmers make up their minds that they will make a profit of £5,000 in a year, and if they only make £2,000 they say they have lost £3,000 on that year. I do not want to look a gift-horse in the mouth, but I think it would be an advantage to the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman would explain how this saving has been effected.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I also would like some explanation of this wonderful feat, this one oasis in the desert of extravagance, and I think we might examine the date trees in it.

Question put, and agreed to.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £182,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain not provided for on other Votes.

Captain W. BENN: I should like some explanation of this Vote from the First Commissioner of Works.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can something be said about this anthrax disinfection station at Liverpool? There has been a good deal about anthrax in connection with shaving brushes lately, but, in any case, why have we done without this disinfection station all these years and are now suddenly asked to authorise an expenditure of £90,000 for it? Might I have an explanation as to Item I, which reads that the sum of £250,000 is required
to meet the cost of supplies of goods under contracts placed prior to the conclusion of the Armistice, and the special equipment for the training of disabled ex-service men.
Is all that money wanted for training ex-service men? If so, we will grant it with great pleasure, and there could not be a more worthy object; but are the supplies of goods under contracts included in the expenditure required for training these men?

8.0 P.M.

Sir A. MOND: With regard to the anthrax disinfection station, it will be erected at Liverpool for the disinfection of wool, and is being established as the result of a recommendation of a Committee which was appointed by the Home Office under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for South Leeds (Sir W. Middlebrook). The station will be on a site close to the docks, and it is expected that a certain amount of the expenditure will be recoverable in charges for disinfection. The Estimate is also for plant that will deal with the disinfection economically and efficiently. I do not profess to be an authority on anthrax, but I think everyone knows that it is a very deadly disease, and causes a great deal of trouble in industrial work. It is, therefore, of the highest importance that we should have an inspecting station. With regard to the other item to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, my Department, like other Departments when the Armistice came, had very considerable commitments of furniture and stores in anticipation of the demands of other Departments, such as the Ministry of Munitions and the Air Ministry, and also foreign Governments, like the United States Government and the Dominion Governments. Of course, when the Armistice came, those stores became unnecessary, and we were left with them. We cancelled over £500,000 of contracts. We have paid some £6,000 in compensation, and we have surrendered £250,000 worth of material to the Disposal Board for sale. The £120,000 Appropriations in-Aid, of course, has to be deducted from that £250,000. Since the Estimate has been made up, I understand that £158,000 has been realised. Of course, I would not like to anticipate a profit, but if the present estimate is fulfilled a small profit will result from the sale of these stores, so that in reality this item will turn out in quite a satisfactory way. A certain amount—I cannot say at the moment how much, but I do not claim
a very large amount—is for the purchase of tools, and things of that kind for the training of disabled ex-Service men.

Major BARNES: The item for the anthrax disinfection station and the item for equipment for the training of disabled ex-Service men must meet, I am sure, with the entire sympathy of the Committee. As the right hon. Member has pointed out, anthrax is a very serious matter indeed, and any expenditure which can remove one of the most serious dangers to people operating in wool must be welcome to the Committee. Would it not have been better to have separated the items under this £250,000, so that we might really have known how much was being spent on the training of those men? I endeavoured to make a little calculation as the Minister was proceeding. He told us that the £120,000 Appropriations-in-Aid was the result of selling the goods which were included in the £250,000, and on those figures I arrived at the conclusion that a sum of £130,000 was being spent in the training of disabled men. I am sure the House would not regard that amount as at ail out of proportion to the services these men have rendered, but I gathered from the remarks of my right hon. Friend that I was too optimistic in my conclusion, and that the amount is a great deal smaller. Whatever Supplementary Estimate we may disagree with, if we should be presented with a Supplementary Estimate for this purpose, and a further sum of money should be required for the training of disabled ex-Service men, it would be voted by this House without any comment at all. I think the right hon. Gentleman might give us a little more information about Item C. That is a sum of £260,000 which is required to defray the expenses of premises "which have remained in occupation longer than anticipated." I fancy the feeling of Members will be that this word "anticipated" should be replaced by the word "required," and that these premises have really been in occupation much longer than they were required. Ever since this Parliament met the Government have been pressed to put a conclusion to the tenancy of a great many of the premises of which they have been in occupation, and we see now what the result of their failure is, that the Estimates are loaded this year with a sum of £260,000 in respect of premises which
are still, I was going to say, in occupation, but I do not know whether that is so or not. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether this really does put an end to the compensation in respect of this item. It would be some consolation to this House, and I think the country, to know that at least this particular charge was being brought to a conclusion. It is a very considerable sum, and one which we should be very glad to see disappear.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: There are two further points on which I think we are entitled to some explanation. The first is with respect to the sum of £28,000 for the erection of cottages for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum. I should like first of all to ask for whom these cottages are designed? Are they for the inmates or are they for the employees? I should also like to know how many cottages there are to be, and how many people they are to house, so that we may be able to know whether the money is being expended to the best advantage. The second point is with regard to item C. We are told that £260,000 is required to defray the rents of premises hired and compensation awarded by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission. Might we not be told how much is for premises hired and how much for compensation awarded? There is a very great difference between the two, and I see no reason why these two things should be lumped together as if they had any real connection with one another. They have no real connection. I should like particularly to know what has been paid for rents of premises during the last few years?

Mr. KILEY: I should like to ask a question concerning Item 25—Purchase of Canadian military hospital, Orpington, £80,000. I sometimes pass by this hospital, and, so far as I can see, it consists of a number of wooden sheds. The amount named seems very large. Has a careful valuation been made in respect to this building? As to Item 26—Erection of anthrax disinfection station, Liverpool, total estimate, £90,000. Is it a palace that is being erected? While I am on this matter, may I suggest to the Minister in Charge the advisability of having one of these stations in London? Anthrax comes from bristles, which are mostly imported through London, and it seems to me that there should be a disinfection station
in London as well as at Liverpool. As regards the item concerned with rents of premises, and so on. I know the Minister has given a good deal of care and thought to this matter, but I should like to suggest that it would be well that his Department should clear out of places like the British Museum while retaining commercial premises: it would be a better course to pursue than the present method, and would be for the good of the community.

Captain BENN: There is one item of considerable importance upon which I should like to question the Financial Secretary, or, failing the hon. Gentleman, the First Commissioner of Works. It has been the practice of this House to pass an Appropriation Act every year, which appropriates the expenditure for the year to its proper purposes. Unfortunately, it has been the growing practice of this Government to alter that old custom of the House of Commons, and to include in contemporary Estimates items of the previous year. Last Session the matter arose in connection with Army expenditure. Votes were put in, and when we asked why, we were told that there were military missions in various parts of the world who could not send in the usual accounts, and, therefore, the accounts could not be wound up. That might be so in that case, but that is very far from being the position in regard to this present Supplementary Estimate—"Item I., Stores to be Purchased (net), required to meet the cost of supplies of goods under contracts placed prior to the conclusion of the Armistice," and so on. The Armistice was in November, 1918. We are now in March, 1920. We find that, for some unknown reason, there is put into this year's Estimate expenditure which certainly, according to our practice, should have been put into last year's. There may be some explanation of this, but the Government has certainly not the excuse that they had in connection with the Army item to which I referred. Take the case of Item C—Rents, Insurance. When we have these items cropping up from the previous financial year we are entitled to ask how far the practice is to be extended? It is certainly a very important function of Parliament to see that the finance of the year is properly arranged within the period of the year. There is one other item to which I would like to call attention before I give way
to the right hon. Gentleman, to whom I wish to give time for reply. What is the principle upon which the Government are acting in respect of surplus stores sold on behalf of the Office of Works? The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that he was going to end this. Yet here it is being treated as an Appropriation-in-Aid.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again" put, and agreed to.—[Colonel Sir E. Sanders.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY (CONTROL).

Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move,
That, except in the case of hops, all Regulations affecting the control of agricultural produce, fertilisers, and feeding-stuffs should forthwith be abolished.
For almost five years British farmers have been the victims of control. Every article they have to produce has been the subject of it—horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, milk, butter, eggs, poultry, hay and straw—all have their markets and prices arranged for them. I am, I think, within the mark in saying that over 250 orders have been passed regulating this much-harassed industry. The British farmer has not been able to deal with his own corn and stock, or even to litter his own animals with his own straw. So numerous and so varied have these orders been that he has not known from day to day whether he might not, in the ordinary avocations or duties of his business, be infringing some new order. So harassed, so irksome have these Regulations become that now, nearly eighteen months after the War has ceased, ho says that it is time that these Orders came to an end. I am going to ask the House to agree with him and to pass the Resolution which stands in my name. I may say at once that the Resolution has received the unanimous support of the Chamber of Agriculture and also of the National Farmers' Union, which is the one body which can speak for the farmers of this country.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: You refer to the English Chamber?

Mr. CAUTLEY: Yes. I am speaking on behalf of England. I have not that intimate knowledge of Scotland that other hon. Members have. From the experience we have had of the drafting and execution of these Orders, and of statements made in Parliament, the farmer has learnt not to place too much reliance on the promises or assurances of Government spokesmen. As for their business efficiency in the conduct of this control the farmer would be inclined to smile if it had not been so costly to his pocket. It may be well if, before I make good this general statement, I should ask the House to consider the one general question of principle. As matters stand to-day, the matter of wheat, for instance—and I shall come back to it in more detail—we may take it that that which is imported into this country the Government are buying in the cheapest market. Yet they fix the price for wheat which is produced at home at 76s. In no quarter of the world, or by any means at the disposal of the Government, in landing it, are they in fact paying for wheat c.i.f., at any English port less than 134s., and I believe it goes up to 140s. or even more. In time of peace the Government are saying to the British farmer, "we will tax you to the difference between 76s. and 134s. on every quarter of wheat that you grow," as a contribution, I suppose, to the subsidy that they are giving to the people of this country in the price of bread. On behalf of the whole agricultural industry I protest against that. Why the farmer, and the labourer, and the men engaged in the production of wheat in this country should be picked out for this special tax, and why they alone of the community should contribute towards this great subsidy in the way they are obliged to do, I cannot understand. It has the effect of making wheat unprofitable to grow here, where as it ought to be the aim of everybody to grow as much wheat as possible. It forces down the agricultural labourers' wages, and to-day we have the spectacle of the lowest skilled man in the country, the average railway porter, getting £3 a week whilst the average agricultural worker, a skilled man, has an average of only 37s. 6d.
Let me direct the attention of the House to the working of these controls. Take some of the main items. I ask the House to consider the action of the Food Controller, and, indirectly, the action of
the Minister of Agriculture, in dealing with the milk supply. I know that the Minister of Agriculture is personally in favour of the proposal I am putting before the House, for he believes the time has come when all control should be abolished. Of course there are other influences at work. I want to say something about the business capacity of the men who are managing the food control. How is it working in the case of milk? Last summer a most elaborate Commission took all the evidence it could, and they fixed certain prices for milk during the winter months from October to April. Quite recently a further investigation has been made, which, with the actual facts before them, confirmed in every particular the detailed cost arrived at by the first Commission. What did the Food Controller do? He issued broadcast public invitations to all the farmers to make all the milk they could during the winter months. I think in this matter the Food Controller went beyond his province, which was to fix prices on an economic basis, but with a view of securing the milk supply he fixed the price for butter at an absolutely uneconomic price, and then fixed the price for cattle, and made it profitable to keep milking cows during the winter, and slaughter them for beef during the summer months, with the result that the market was flooded with milk, although the prices fixed by him were only the economic prices to enable the farmers to produce the milk which created such a glut, and the milk could not be disposed of. They then decontrolled milk and left the farmers to struggle as best they could to get out of the impasse they had created. If you decontrol an article which the farmer produces, and leave him to bear the loss, you should at the same time decontrol those on which he may make a profit.
Let me now turn to the next item; that is, cattle, sheep and pigs. I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question to-day as to what were the numbers of sheep and pigs in this country now on the last returns he had compared with pre-War times, and they show something like a diminution of 2,000,000 sheep in the country and 350,000 pigs; and the right, hon. Gentleman candidly admitted, indeed, he could not do otherwise, that this diminution in our flocks of sheep and herds of pigs was entirely due to con-
trolled markets and prices being forced upon this industry by the Food Controller. Is that going to tend towards an adequate supply of home-produced food, or is it going to tend to lessen the quantity of food which is going to be produced at home? I am glad that there has been an announcement that, so far as pigs are concerned, they are going to be decontrolled at the end of this month, and I shall say no more about that except to foretell that the number of pigs will steadily increase, and we shall get back quickly to the numbers we had before the War.
Let me inform hon. Members who may not be aware of the details how we are hampered by this system of infernal control. I ask any commercial man how his industry could progress under such circumstances. How have we got to sell our sheep? Two men are appointed to estimate the weight of the sheep in the carcase, although it is still alive, and although the farmer takes all the trouble to produce a sheep fit for the butcher. He has to sell it at the guesswork of two people about whom he knows nothing, and he has to send it to some market, and these men direct where it has to go, and the farmer has to sell it at the guesswork of other people over whom he has no power of appointment and no control of any sort or kind. What would a Manchester manufacturer say if he had to sell his cotton goods at the estimated value of somebody else? He would soon become bankrupt.
How have we to sell our stock of cattle? You send your animal into the market and it has to go before two people called "graders" who have to say whether it is first, second or third quality, and according to quality they fall in price 5s. per cwt. live weight, and these graders can further vary the price by 1s. or 2s. per cwt. It is then passed over the weighing scales. Is there any wonder at the dissatisfaction throughout the country, although the graders are doing the best they can? I make no charge against them except that some of them are incompetent. It is at the best all guesswork. In my own market town, Haywards Heath, in Sussex, we have had this sort of thing happening. A man sent a fat bullock to be sold, and instead of it being graded in the first class, it was put into the second class.
The owner said, "I will not sell at that price," but the Food Controller warned him that unless he sent it in to the next market he would be subject to a penalty of £100, or six months' imprisonment. He sent it back to the market, and the Food Minister sent down a super-grader, who stated, "I cannot alter it; but it is quite true you have not been treated properly." This man had consequently to sell at a loss of at least £5. Here is another case. A farmer who is a good judge of cattle, sent in a beast, and two of his friends, who are large dealers, declared that it ought to be put into the first class, first quality. But in the market it was graded as second quality, which meant a loss of 7s. per cwt. on a 12 cwt. animal, or, altogether, four guineas. I appeal to any commercial man, is it possible that trade can go on under such circumstances? Yet this is the sort of thing the right hon. Gentleman is going to ask the farmers to continue to submit to at a time when the War is over. I ask hon. Members as business men, treating this matter purely as a matter of business, whether the time has not yet come when we should have a free market like anybody else engaged in trade?
I am coming now to what is perhaps really even more serious, and that is the question of wheat. Anybody who has really studied the interests of agriculture will confirm me when I say that wheat growing is really the foundation of all agriculture. It is the staple cereal, the staple product, and the centre around which agriculture turns. I make no complaint of what was done during the War. Everybody then had to submit to exceptional circumstances. But I ask this House to bear with me a few minutes while I describe what has happened so far as wheat prices are concerned in the last few years. In the spring of 1918, the Food Controller fixed the price at 75s. 6d. and it rose at the end of the season to 76s. 6d. per quarter. These were to be the minimum prices. I understand my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Boscawen) to say they were to be the mean prices. But the right hon. Gentleman took no steps to secure that the farmer should get these prices. On the other hand, the Food Controller, or the Wheat Commission, issued such an enormous amount of foreign wheat that the farmer could not even get that price. That shows the House the nature of the ties put on this particular industry. Now mark what
happened. Early in 1919, as soon as Parliament met, we took steps—I amongst others—to ascertain what was going to be done about the wheat grown in 1919. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take note of this, because I say that the farmer was absolutely let down not only by the Food Controller but by the Board of Agriculture. We got a statement from the right hon. Gentleman, and from the Board, that the price for 1919 would be the same as that of the previous year as a minimum, and I have in my hand telegrams which passed between the Boards of Agriculture in England and Scotland which make that perfectly plain, because the final telegram says, "The maximum prices of last year shall be the minimum for 1919." Lord Ernie, who was then President of the Board, went to Maid-stone in the spring of the year and made the same statement. He told the farmers they would have the play of the market for their 1919 wheat, and the right hon. Gentleman below me (Sir A. Boscawen) in the second Debate that took place in the House said;
I pointed out that as regards this year's crop we were disregarding the Corn Production Act altogether, and had fixed as the minimum prices the maximum which prevailed last November.
Instead of acting up to these pledges, however, they played what I was going to call a really low-down trick; at any rate, the Food Controller—it was not the Board of Agriculture—issued an Order to the millers of the country that they were in no case to pay more than 76s. 6d. to the English farmer, and if they did, they would not get the necessary amount of foreign wheat to make good their supply. Having made that promise to the farmers, having said that the maximum price of the last year should be the minimum price for 1919, they then fixed those prices, not only as the minimum, but as the maximum, also, for 1919. That is the reason why the farmer does not rely very much on the promises and assurances of Government officials. But the story I have to tell does not end there. I have pointed out how, as early as 1918, a reasonable price for wheat was fixed at 75s. 6d. and 76s. 6d., and was continued for the next year, 1919. But from 1918 right away, the cost of production has steadily increased in every single item that can be named. Wages have gone up, I will not
say by leaps and bounds, but by a very large amount, and everything the farmer has to buy in connection with the production of wheat has also increased in price. To put it, so far as wheat is concerned, on wages alone, in October last there was an increase in the farm worker's wage of 6s 6d. per week, while the working hours were reduced to 50 and 48 from 60 and 54. In spite of this increase—and I am only dealing with one increase, there are others—in spite of this increase of 6s. 6d. a week in the wages, the prices have remained at 76s. 6d., and we are told we are still to be controlled at that price.
The House may have observed that, and those who read about agricultural matters no doubt have done so, the present President of the Board made a pronouncement a day or two ago. Why he made it I am at a loss to understand, unless it was that he wished to emphasise the difficulties under which agriculturists are suffering. He promised them no relief. On the contrary, although there has been this largo increase in cost and although there is at present pending an application for a still further increase of wages of some shillings a week, we are told by the President that the present price of English wheat is still to be 77s. 6d. for this year, whereas in the very pronouncement made by the present President of the Board of Agriculture he states that what cost 76s. last year is now at least 95s. Again, I appeal to any commercial man whether it is possible for the farmer to go on growing wheat in this country under conditions and under control such as this.
Will the House look at it in one or two other ways? The present price of wheat is about £17 a ton. I grow wheat. I am not allowed to use it to feed my own pigs or poultry, but I am obliged to buy other feeding stuffs at £25 a ton. Is that business? The Food Controller and the President have done rightly in my opinion in taking all control off barley and oats. The result of the action of the Food Controller and the Board of Agriculture combined has been what was naturally to be expected after what I have said. It would be expected that the cultivation of wheat had seriously decreased. It has decreased, after all the efforts which were made during the war, by no less than 400,000 acres up to June last—over 1,600,000 quarters of wheat. What does the House think it has been since? What is the pre-
sent position of the ordinary farmer who can grow wheat or oats or barley? I saw it stated by a man at Ipswich that an acre of wheat produces £13, an acre of oats produces from £18 to £20, and an acre of barley produces from £25 to £30. With figures such as that, which is going to be produced? Wherever land is suitable, wheat is not being grown and barley and oats are We want wheat in this country. We want to stop the terrible rise of exchange against us, to grow as much as we can here, instead of buying from America and the Argentine at 130s. a quarter, as the right hon. Gentleman is doing, and selling to the miller at 67s. or 70s. He is selling at this huge loss to the taxpayer rather than paying a little more to the Englishman and having the wheat grown hero. Why docs he? I shall be glad to hear the answer. We ask to have this matter controlled and put on a purely business footing. What is happening to the wheat lands which we ought to be cropping? I have a paragraph from a letter written by the President of the National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants to the Farmer and Stockbreeder, on 16th February:
Enquiries and orders for grass seeds for laying down permanent pasture at present in the hands of big seedsmen in this country are unprecedented.
Seeds for laying down land to grass to-day are about £5 an acre instead of £2 or £2 10s. That means that the heavy lands which are not suitable for barley and oats and ought to be growing wheat and which, by great efforts, have been growing wheat during the War, are being laid down to grass because of the action of the hon. Gentleman below me, I want to alter that. I want the House to say the time has come when it should be altered.
I want to free from control all feeding stuffs and fertilisers that the farmer has to buy. I have said little of the costly army of officials which all this control is involving. I did not tell you that on every bullock sold in this country there is a cost of £6 being taken by the Government out of the consumer, out of every sheep £2, and out of every pig almost as much. I want to stop all that. Farmers have had some advantage out of the control of fertilisers in that by the restriction of exports a certain amount of sulphate of ammonia—200,000 tons—and a certain
amount of nitrate, has been preserved to him. We are prepared to pay the increased price on that for the sake of freedom, for the sake of having our own initiative and growing what crops we please, and we sot against that any increase in the price of wheat that there may be. I should like to have dealt with fertilisers and feeding stuffs and with hops, but I have laid more than the foundation of something with which the right hon. Gentleman below me will find some difficulty in dealing in the demand that I make for freedom for this much-harassed industry, so that we may set to work on it. The free play of the market is what we want, and to get rid of this costly system which has been set up to hamper us in every direction. I am certain that if we could get that, instead of increasing prices the tendency will be to diminish them.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: I beg to second the Motion. I was so moved by the eloquence of my hon. Friend that I began to wonder whether the hon. Gentlemen who represent the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food are sane persons or not. But when one thinks the matter over, one realises that they have been up against a very tough proposition. It was easy enough for this House, as it did in 1914–15, to pass measures of control through all their stages at a single sitting, but the result has been that the octopus of bureaucracy, which spreads its tentacles over the nation, cannot be got rid of in a moment. There are influences which act and react and make the withdrawal of control in many cases a matter of difficulty and, in some cases, almost impossible at the present time. Take one question, which is not for the moment a matter of control, the indiscriminate slaughter of calves which is going on throughout the country to-day. At least, it is going on in my part of the country, and the effect will be that in three years' time there will be a shortage of home-grown beef, and, what is more important, because you cannot import it, there will be a shortage of milk. I mention that as one of the difficulties which have to be faced. There are difficulties whore there are real shortages, such as in the case of potatoes. I am not going into the unhappy history of the control of last season's potato crop, but I realise that there may be a shortage at this moment, and there, again,
the Food Ministry is responsible in dealing with the matter. So far as possible, whether we represent rural constituencies or urban divisions, we ought to look at this matter from the national point of view and not try to make the prosperity of agriculture the cause of strife and jealousy and accusations of profiteering between the urban and the rural districts.
I shall confine my remarks chiefly to the question of hops. It may be said, especially by those who do not know the subject, that farmers wish to get rid of control in the agricultural industry where control is irksome to them, but wish to keep the control when it suits their purpose. I hope to be able to show that in the case of hops there is a ease for the control being continued for at least another five years. Hops were controlled from 1917, and the reason they were controlled was, I believe, that there was an uneven distribution of hops amongst the growers in the country and a shortage of hops naturally coming from abroad. Therefore, the Government wished to see that the supplies went round as far as possible. In 1918 the submarine danger became very acute and there was almost a panic with regard to food supplies, and an Order was made that 50 per cent. of the pre-war acreage should be grubbed up and put under potatoes or wheat. This was cheerfully agreed to by the growers in spite of the great loss of capital which it involved. It involved loss of capital which to reinstate today would mean £200 an acre. It also meant that the cast houses and the huts used for housing the pickers are not being used owing to the decreased acreage, and unless the acreage is increased they will soon be falling absolutely into disrepair. No compensation whatever was paid for' the grubbing up of the hops. We know that there certain compensation was given for ploughing up grass land. The value of the best grazing land in Northamptonshire and other grazing counties in England is as nothing compared to the damage done by the grubbing up of land which has been used for hops. It costs £200 an acre to put it back under hops, and not one penny piece has been paid by the State as compensation for that land.
9.0 P.M.
In reply to a question the other day it was stated that the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission could not meet any
claim which was made for the grubbing up of hops. That is the position as it stood in 1918, and as it stands to-day. The land was grubbed up without a penny of compensation, the acreage under hops has gone down from somewhere over 32,000 to 16,000, and the position is very serious. In 1914, we imported into this country one-third of the hops we required and grew two-thirds. To-day we grow one-third and import two-thirds. Licences for the importation of no less than 590,000 cwts. of hops have been granted, and that means that at £15 a cwt. that considerably over £8,000,000 has gone out of this country at a time when the exchanges make it desirable that as far as possible we should grow as much as we can in this country. One hon. Member has an Amendment dealing with the question of hops. There is at this moment a world shortage of hops. At the present time prices of hops run in the neighbourhood of £26 to £28, or considerably more than the controlled price. It may be said that buyers are very foolish to ask for control because without it they would get the benefit of the higher prices owing to the world shortage. That shows that the growers are far-seeing, and realise that it is not wise in agriculture, any more than in industry, to limit output. There-may be some who would say that it would be better to grow a smaller crop than get a larger price. Others, looking at it from the national point of view, and with a vision of what will happen in future, say they would rather have a controlled price and have a larger acreage under hops. Though the price of hops may be high they state that there have been large contracts going to America, California especially, for hops in 1921 and 1922, and I am informed even up to the 1926 growth, at prices considerably less than the market price to-day.
That is a danger which influences the growers in their hesitation, without some definite guarantee from the Government, to replant their hop acreage at an enormous cost of £200 an acre. They want some assurance that they will get a return on their outlay. We are for control for the following reasons. We wish to see the industry re-established with at least the acreage which it had pre-War. We wish for control because it guarantees a fair profit on the output, and I would
put it to the Labour party that this control has been in effect a limitation, almost a voluntary limitation, on profits on the part of the grower. Not the least remarkable thing in the hop industry is that for the first time in the course of my life, certainly in the course of my political life, I have found everybody in connection with the hop industry in agreement. Very few Members of this House, probably, are intimate with the hop industry, but when you get hop growers and brewers agreed in all particulars it is a case of the lion and the lamb lying down together, though which is the lion and which the lamb I am not going to say. Brewers, factors, merchants, growers are in agreement, and a large number of branches of the agricultural workers have passed resolutions in favour of control.
It will also save a large amount of shipping, help our exchange, and increase employment, if we re plant our pre War acreage, because no branch of agriculture employs so many men per acre as the hop industry. Even more important, it employs the men on the land all through the year. It employs their wives and children during the picking time, and gives a fine holiday to the women and children of largo portions of the east-end of London and different cities in the Worcestershire area in the autumn, adding at the same time substantially to their means of living. Lastly, what is more important perhaps at present than anything else, it does not cost a penny to the nation. It is very seldom that anybody asks in this House for something that does not cost anything. Here is a demand put forward in a united manner for something which this House can grant which will not cost the country a single penny—because it has not cost the country a penny from its inception in 1918 to the present day.
But it is an urgent matter. This is the last month in which the cuttings may be taken to plant what are called sets for planting next autumn. I am informed that to-day there is no demand for these cuttings because growers do not know where they stand. It is urgent that a pronouncement should be made at once. The other day the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Boscawen) said that the Government realised the importance of this matter and were going to take adequate steps. I would urge him strongly to make some definite pronouncement to-night because
after the end of this month it will be too late to plant for the present year. While there are other matters which may seem more important to many Members of the House, yet this House has always done its best to safeguard the interests of the minority, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do all he can to reassure the growers that their interests will be safeguarded and that they will have some recompense for the manner in which they grubbed up their gardens and the loss to which they have been put since 1918.

Mr. ROYCE: I should like to support in its entirety this Resolution, but I cannot do so first because one particular agricultural product is excepted and also because I do think that there are circumstances that require a certain amount of control when prices soar beyond what may be regarded as a reasonable amount. To that extent I am not in favour of the Resolution, but with the idea of the general principle of the Resolution, the removal of control from agriculture, I am in sympathy. The method in which that control has been exercised is far worse than the control itself. It is the worst feature. My hon. Friend the Member for East Grin-stead (Mr. Cautley) pointed a very threatening finger at the Food Controller. The Food Controller deserves something worse than a threat. The whole of his administration, as regards my own particular county is concerned, is as bad as it can possibly be, and there has been an actual breach of faith on the part of his Department. It is one thing when the country is emerging from a very grave danger, but it was another thing when it was in the depth of danger, when danger threatened it. I am thinking of the time when an appeal was made in 1918 to the farmers of my constituency to grow potatoes. I was then a member of the War Executive Committee and we were asked to assist the Government in this connection. We not only induced people to grow potatoes, but we forced a good many to grow them. We forced men to plough up their pasture, though they had no desire to grow potatoes, and regarded that class of agriculture as entirely foreign to them. A guarantee was given to the growers, and I should like to read some of the terms of that guarantee, but, before doing so, I wish to say one or two words with regard to the matters brought before the House by the hon. Member for
East Grinstead, more especially with relation to corn-growing.
Although corn is not one of the principal products of my part of the country, still, in common with other agricultural districts of England, we feel that we have been very badly treated. When a guaranteed minimum is made the maximum and when a Department, who ought to observe honourable obligations, go behind the backs of the people with whom they had made the arrangements and tell the millers that anything they pay over and above the minimum price will be charged against them, it is going beyond ordinary fairness, and, when a farmer finds that he gets £2 per ton for his corn and then has to go back and buy offals at £3 per ton from the miller to whom he has sold his corn, it seems somewhat ridiculous, does it not? Of course, farmers will not grow corn, and this year you have a decrease when you want the corn so badly. Let it never be forgotten that the guarantees in the matter of the growing of cereals have not cost the Government one fraction. On the contrary, the farmers of England—the agriculturists of England, because it reacts upon the labourers—the labourers and the farmers of England subsidised the food of the nation to the extent of £40,000,000 last year and Heaven only knows how much this year That is the position of affairs, so far as the cereal products of England is concerned. You have not used the farmers well; you have used them badly.
We have other grievances. Wherever the hand of control has been placed, it has been exercised to the serious detriment of those engaged in the industry. Take the question of straw. Control was placed upon straw, and it now found that it can be released. The farmer who has had his straw controlled for one year, two years, or three years, now finds that it can be released on condition that he pays the interest on the amount that the Government Department have advanced. He has to pay that interest, though he has been debarred from the interest which would have accrued to him upon the price he would have received for his straw if he had been permitted to sell it. You see, therefore, how badly the farmers have been used in this connection. When I come to the question of potatoes, things are very much worse. The Food
Controller, in 1918, made a special appeal. Lord Rhondda, speaking as Food Controller, at the meeting of farmers at the Caxton Hall on February 1st, 1918, said:
If varieties that would not keep deteriorated to an abnormal extent the Department would bear the loss and the farmer would not.
Again, Major Belcher, speaking as Director of Vegetable Supplies, with the explicit sanction of the Chief Permanent Officials, at Doncaster, on March 2nd, 1918, said:
If, in spite of all reasonable precautions, the potatoes were visited by disease which might have been remedied by immediate delivery, or if they were destroyed by flood, the farmer would then receive payment for them, although they had not actually gone into human consumption.
This may be a subject for hilarity on the part of the Food Controller and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, but it is a very serious matter for the farmers. I am not concerned so much with the big farmer. He can defend himself, and he will not submit to the measures that have been awarded him, but will appeal to the Courts. It is the small man in whom I am particularly interested. In some instances, the man whose cause I am taking up has had to leave his crops on the land and go and fight for his country. He has not had an opportunity of looking after them. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench on their behalf, and I do beg them to pay special attention, because I have a real case. I would not be here if I had not. After we had induced and forced the farmers and smallholders to grow potatoes, the Potatoes Growers' Prices Commission went round and assessed the prices that were to be paid. They made a Report, and we had a Debate in this House and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Food was good enough and kind enough—I believe he meant it at the time—to promise to recommend to his Chief that a Commission should be appointed to investigate affairs and to assess any amount that might be due to the growers of these potatoes. The Commission was duly appointed, and on March 18th, 1919, the hon. Gentleman, according to the Report of the Central Advisory Agricultural Council, made this statement:
Then the suggestion arose that quite apart from normal wastage and loss intended to be covered by those prices—
Those were the prices fixed by the Growers' Commission—
there are certain items of abnormal wastage never contemplated which have arisen, in consequence of which growers Buffer in different parts of the country. Let me refer to two causes. There is, firstly, the wet weather, labour difficulties, and the blight being in excess of anything contemplated at the time that these prices were fixed. These are cases in which there ought to be some claim on those grounds. Secondly, it is said that it was contemplated under that arrangement that the Government should take delivery within a reasonable time.
The potatoes on November 1st, 1918, were the property of the State, and the farmer, no matter what opportunity he might have had to dispose of them, was debarred from doing so. He had no right even to remove them. They were the property of the Government. Consequently if he had had a market and had seen his potatoes going bad he could not remove them.
Continuing his statement the hon. Gentleman said:
There are cases in which there ought to be some claim on these grounds, and, secondly, it is said it was contemplated under that arrangement that the Government should take delivery within a reasonable time, and, of course, as regards the early growing and badly keeping varieties, that would be taken into consideration when the date of delivery was fixed. There may be losses arising from the inability of the Government to take early delivery. Let, me say at once that, so far as any claims can be put forward by potato growers in any part of the country upon the basis that they have suffered losses either from the delay of the Government in taking delivery unreasonably, having regard to the nature of the potatoes or from abnormal causes, exceptional causes, which were not in contemplation by the Commissioners when the prices were fixed, we are ready and always have been ready to meet these claims, not merely in a spirit of justice, but, if I may say so, in a spirit of generosity.
Let us see how they applied this spirit of generosity. They appointed a Commission to enquire locally, and that Commission was composed of two of the representatives of the farmers, two representatives of the Food Controller, and an independent chairman, and their duties were to investigate on the spot. One would have thought that such a Commission would have been a fair Commission, and would have assessed and given final judgment. They were not. They had to report to another Committee; they sent in their Reports to this other Committee,
which sits in London. That London Committee was composed as follows: four representatives of the Government; one representative of the Consumers' Council; two farmers, and an impartial chairman. I do not think any hon. Members who were concerned in the matter would regard that Tribunal as being quite the correct thing, so far as the interests of the growers were concerned, for there were only two farmers and five others of diverse interests opposed to them. It was hardly likely the growers would get much in the nature of a judgment. It would have been reasonable, if it was necessary, to have a Reference Commission here in London, that the Commission should be constituted in the same manner as that which took evidence in the country, where they had an opportunity of seeing the farmer, and investigating the whole of the evidence. As I have said, the report was referred to this Central Claims Committee, and as far as adjudication was concerned, the result has been something in the nature of a disaster. Let me give particulars of a few cases reported to me. A widow made a claim for £1,750, which was recommended by the local Committee, She got nothing. In another case the local Committee recommended £8,685, and the Central Committee agreed to pay £125. In a third case the local Committee unanimously recommended £500, and the Central Committee turned the claim down. In a fourth case the local Committee unanimously recommended £9,115, and the Central Committee allowed £3,000.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member has misconceived somewhat the Motion on which he is speaking. We are discussing the question whether or not control should be maintained or removed in the future, and it would be wrong to go over the past, except as a slight illustration of an argument.

Mr. ROYCE: I will not transgress again, but I thought I was proving how very bad control was, and I was endeavouring to get that control either removed or so amended that it would be a workable control. I have no objection to steps that would prevent prices soaring and prevent undue profiteering. But to use the vehicle that the Department or the Ministry has in its hands as a means of oppression indiscriminately
over men who do not deserve to be oppressed, who have responded as far as they can to the demands of their country, is something that I think ought not only to be brought to the notice of the House, but ought to be brought as prominently as possible to the notice of the head of the Department. Justice should be done impartially, no matter what it costs the State, if the people concerned have carried out their contracts. I want absolute freedom for the farmer in the matter of purchases and sales, until his produce reaches such a limit as will impose an undue burden on the country. At the present time it is just the contrary. The farmer has subsidised the food of the country and the labourer has suffered in consequence.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture will later on reply to the speeches which concern him, and I do not propose to go into matters which will be dealt with by him. I wish merely to deal specifically with the question of potatoes as raised by the hon. Member opposite.

Captain Sir B. STANIER: not that out of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand that the Minister is going to deal with the control of potatoes in the future. That surely is part of agricultural industry, is it not?

Sir B. STANIER: With all due respect to you. Sir, the hon. Gentleman said he was going to reply to the hon. Member who put the question with regard to the control of potatoes in the past.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: From the information which reached me, I understood that he was going to deal directly with the question that the control of agricultural produce be forthwith abolished.

Mr. McCURDY: I had no intention of entering at all into the controversy with regard to the past operations of the Ministry of Food, except to say that some charge, amounting almost to a want of faith on the part of the Ministry, was made. I want to say, in one sentence, that I did lay down principles on which
potato growers should be entitled to compensation, in March of last year. Commissions were appointed to investigate the claims of all growers, in accordance with those principles—with which I understand the hon. Member does not quarrel—and to-night in this House is the first occasion on which it has been brought to my notice that there has been any dissatisfaction on the part of any potato grower with the decisions arrived at by those Commissions. I shall be very glad to inquire into the particulars of any case which the hon. Member may bring before me. This is the first intimation I have had, although so many months have elapsed since the Commissions were set up, and it leads me to hope that on the whole they performed their work satisfactorily.
But I desire to call the attention of the House to the effect which the policy recommended in this Motion would have upon the potato position of this country which, I regret to say at the present time, is somewhat serious. I think a statement which will not occupy more than a minute or two of your time will not only perhaps be of interest to the House with regard to the actual position of the potato question at the present time, but will afford subject matter to illustrate some of the principles which will be advanced on one side of the House or the other in this Debate. Prior to the War the average cost of first-crop potatoes in this country was 70s. to 75s. per ton; second crop 55s. to 60s. per ton, and the average crop from 1908 to 1917 was 3,700,000 tons, a yield of 6.3 tens per acre. In 1917, we found it necessary to impose control. The price of potatoes had then soared to something like £14 a ton, and in 1918 that control was extended so as to cover the purchase of the entire potato crop, a transaction to which the hon. Member who spoke last has referred. During 1918, as a result of measures which secured what I think was regarded as a reasonable price to the farmer, production was increased to 5,360,000, an average yield of 6.6 tons per acre, and the price received varied according to the period of the year from £6 to £10 per ton. At the commencement of 1919 we decontrolled, and the farmer was left free to the economic play of the market. The result, I am sorry to say, has been that the crop has declined from 5,360,000 tons to what, on the best materials before me, derived from investigations from the growers
themselves, appears to be a total yield for 1919 of 2,900,000 tons, or 4.7 tons per acre.

Lieut.-Colonel MURROUGH WILSON: Was not that due to a very large extent to the very dry summer?

Mr McCURDY: Certainly. The yield per acre unquestionably is partly due to that and partly due to the fact that, where the farmer has secured what he regards as a satisfactory and substantial price, it pays him to manure a little more freely, in order to increase the yield per acre. These factors were absent, and the present crop is unfortunately considerably below the average for ten years before the War The price to-day for potatoes, which, under control, never reached higher than £10 per ton, is £14 and £15 per ton. I can assure the House that, whatever may have been the mistakes of the Ministry of Food in the novel and extremely complicated task with which it was called upon to deal, it has been a settled principle that it was to the interest of the consumer and to the interest of the public that in exercising control and fixing prices we should always endeavour to fix prices at a level not lower than was sufficient to encourage home production and to ensure to the farmer an adequate return. Mistakes there may have been, but errors can be rectified, and I ask the House to believe that, at any rate, that is the principle on which we have acted. I venture to suggest that that is the case with potatoes, in regard to which in a few days we shall re-impose control. For the convenience of the trade I will state at once the terms which will be imposed, A maximum growers' price for ware potatoes of £12 15s. a ton, free on rail, from the 15th of March, rising by fortnightly increments of 5s. to £14 a ton for potatoes delivered in June. I think the history of potatoes in this country during the last few years shows that what is really in the interests of the country and of the agriculturists is not the highest price that can be obtained at one moment—profiteering one year, followed by bankruptcy the next—but a steady and maintained level of prices, which give confidence and security to what, after all, is one of the most important, if not the most important, industry in this country.

Captain FITZROY: I feel inclined to condole with the hon. Gentleman who sits
below me, who, as a result of the Motion he has moved to-night, has received from the Government the answer that it is going to put on control which at present does not exist. So far as I can understand from the remarks which fell from; the hon. Gentleman on the front Bench, the only reason why he is forced to put fresh control on potatoes at the present moment is owing to the disastrous failure of the control which he put on last year, which discouraged the growers. The opportunities which arise in this House for Debates on this question are extremely rare, and I think it is most unfortunate, and that it can be proved to be unfortunate by the course which this discussion has taken to-night, because it has ranged over a vast number of different things. There are many subjects with which agriculture deals, and we wish that the Government could see their way to give more prominence to agriculture as one of the greatest questions of the day, and to give us more opportunities to discuss this question in the House of Commons. The Motion to-night affords us an opportunity of discussing the recent announcement which the Government have made with regard to the control of wheat. I think the history of control is a melancholy one. I give the Cabinet the credit of being composed of intelligent men, but how any body of intelligent men could have produced such a policy with regard to the production of wheat it is very difficult to understand. After all the proposals they have made from time to time as to the control of price and of methods of growing, the result has been that instead of encouraging the growth and production of wheat in this country, they have done everything possible to discourage it in every way.
I want, if I possibly can, to confine my remarks to the announcement of the Government, made in last Friday's newspapers, and it is my intention to condemn that announcement in the most severe manner I possibly can. The curious thing is that it is quite unnecessary, or should be unnecessary, for me to have to condemn that policy, because in making the announcement there was a statement by the Minister of Agriculture, who condemned it in unmeasured terms. Thus you have an announcement made by the Cabinet in which the representative of the particular industry concerned has a seat, and in making that
announcement to the public he condemns it from start to finish. I cannot imagine why that announcement was made as a separate branch of the policy of the Government. We have been promised in the King's Speech a policy for agriculture by the Government and to be announced at the earliest possible moment. Instead of bringing in the policy as a whole to deal with agricultural questions in this House as a whole, they produce this announcement instead of bringing it in as part of the general policy which they must at the earliest possible opportunity produce to this House What is the history of the control of wheat during the last year? I will deal with it, not from any spirit of dislike on behalf of the agricultural community, but purely and simply from the position of the need for an increased production of wheat in this country, and from no other point of view. Obviously the people engaged in any industry always dislike control. I am quite sure when the question of control really comes up for discussion I, at any rate, will be quite sure to agree with the hon. Member who spoke just now on this question. The control of wheat began in the Corn Production Act. That Act was introduced in the middle of the War when this country was in an extremely critical condition from the shortage of foodstuffs caused by the submarine danger, which was then at its height. It was introduced to meet a specific danger. In time of war that Act worked pretty well. The farmers of this country, I think, did their duty manfully, and did all they could to produce as much corn as possible, and did increase very largely the amount of corn produced.
When peace was declared, and the cost of production went on rising, the Corn Production Act failed because it was based on an entirely wrong principle. It was based on the principle as regards the cost of production on a rising scale, and as regards the price obtained on a falling scale. It is quite obvious that any Act of Parliament based on that principle with a view to increasing production must very largely fail. It also forgot this essential detail, that in dealing with the question of production of a particular cereal you cannot force any man to produce a particular thing when it pays him
better to produce something else. You cannot force a man to produce wheat when it pays him better to produce barley. I say for myself that at the present moment I cannot afford to grow wheat. With the cost of production of the wheat crop and the return you are allowed to get for it from the Government, it does not pay to grow that particular kind of cereal. An hon. Friend pointed out that the basis of all these things is founded on the production of wheat. It is always forgotten, though I think it can be proved by statistics, that all other cereals rise correspondingly with the rise in the price of wheat. You will find, if you look up the prices of cereals for many years past, that when wheat is high, barley and oats and the rest all rise together. Therefore, it is obvious, if you are trying to farm one particular kind of cereals, that unless you give them free play with the other kind of cereals every farmer will produce the particular kind that pays him best. I know the Government think that any decontrol of the price of wheat would seriously affect the consumer, but that is a very short-sighted view to take of this question. We have got, as you know, a bread subsidy, and a very serious burden on the taxpayer it is and it promises to be an even more serious burden if the present policy of the Government is continued, because we must realise that every quarter of wheat which can be produced in this country lessens by that amount the amount of wheat we have got to import from abroad, and as the very large cost of wheat imported from abroad is due to freights and other causes, you would save that on every quarter of wheat grown in this country. To take the longsighted view, it is quite obvious that our business, if we want to consider the interests of the consumer, is to encourage to the utmost of our powers the production of wheat in this country.
As regards wages, it is quite easy to go on increasing the wages of the agricultural labourer, and I should be only too glad for the agricultural labourer to be able to receive a wage equivalent in every respect to the wages paid in other industries. But a rise in the price of wheat is an indication at any rate, if nothing more, of the rise in the price of everything else, and when prices rise the cost of living increases, and it is essential to raise the wages of the agricultural labourer. At the same time, the Govern-
ment propose to keep the price of wheat at a figure at which it cannot be grown, and the obvious result is that, although the wages of the agricultural labourer individually may be raised, the ultimate result is that you must create unemployment in the agricultural industry. We had a Bill the other day introduced into this House for unemployment insurance, but agriculture was not included, and so far as I am aware there was no demand on the part of the agricultural labourers to be included, because unemployment in agriculture is not so common as in other industries, but if you proceed with this policy and make it impossible for farmers to grow wheat and to keep their land under arable cultivation for that process, you must inevitably include the agricultural labourer in the unemployment insurance scheme. It is a very common practice of Governments, especially of Governments in Great Britain, to hide their heads in the sand and not to deal with facts as they are at the moment. They are much too apt to wait until a crisis arises before they take any steps to avert it. That was the case very often in the War, and I thought they would have learned a lesson from that; but with them as with other people the War is soon forgotten.
I am certain that unless they take adequate steps in the very near future to increase the production of wheat in this country, a very dangerous state of affairs with regard to the supplies of wheat here will arise. It is obvious to anybody who seriously studios this question that the world's supplies of wheat are not increasing. Those countries which grow wheat are consuming a great deal more of what they grow themselves and have less to export to this country, and it is obvious, therefore, that this country as well as other countries must depend in the future much more largely than in the past on what they can produce within their own borders. We had a lesson from the War of the danger of letting our supplies depend upon overseas, and I think in the future that danger will be even greater, and if the Government do not realise their responsibility in this matter, they will be to blame if we find ourselves in a very difficult situation. Therefore, I do implore the Government to take every necessary step to increase the production of wheat. I am bound to say, from their action hitherto in this direction, that it
makes it extremely difficult for me and for those who think with me on this question to give them our support on this occasion. We cannot put ourselves in the position of sharing their responsibility in not only letting the agricultural industry down, but—and I do not wish to be offensive—but in what I might call deceiving the consumer as to the real position in regard to wheat.
10.0 P.M.
I implore them at this last moment to tell us, even if they are not going completely to decontrol wheat, that, at any rate, they are going to give us something which will encourage us to grow it. They have got it grown so far under false pretences. We were led to believe last summer that they would give us a guaranteed price for the 1919 harvest, and that we were to have an open market over and above that price, but when it came to the point we found that the Wheat Commission had stepped in and that the guaranteed price had become a maximum price, and that instead of being allowed an open market we were to get that guaranteed price for the wheat that we grow, and no more. We are told by the Minister of Agriculture in the statement which he made the other day that that guaranteed price is equivalent now to 95s. instead of 75s., 20s. a quarter more than the price we were able to get from the 1019 harvest. At this moment the wheat is ill the ground. To that extent the Government are secure in the amount of wheat that they are going to get for the 1920 harvest. It is no good talking about spring wheat. About 15 per cent. of the whole supply of this country is spring wheat, and it is far too late now to put in spring wheat if you are going to get any sort of yield from it. As regards the 1920 harvest, the Government have absolutely got that under false pretences, and have led us into planting as much ground as we have at the present time. I saw the statement of the Minister of Agriculture in the newspapers, that although the maximum price given for 1921 does not apply to the harvest of 1920, yet it must, indirectly, favourably affect the price of the 1920 harvest. I absolutely fail to understand what he means, and I invite the representative of agriculture on the Front Bench to tell us what he does mean. I do again ask—and earnestly ask—that the Government will reconsider their decision, because if they will not,
I, at any rate, and I think anyone holding the views I hold on this question, will go into the Division Lobby.

Major HOWARD: Although there has been a ruling of Mr. Deputy-Speaker that we cannot go back too far into the past, we must consider what effect control has had in the past before we can arrive at a decision as to whether it should continue in the future Although I do not want to go back ten years, as did the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Food Ministry, I do want to go back to the time of the War. I think everyone will agree that we responded loyally to the request of the Government when, owing to the submarine danger, they called upon farmers to plough up their land. We were then of opinion that we should grow as much wheat as we possibly could in this country, and I think every Member will agree that we ought to grow as much wheat as we can to-day in this country. What has been the result of the Food Controller's action as regards growing more wheat in this country? We know that for the 1919 crop, it shrunk by 400,000 to 500,000 acres, and I believe when we get the return in June for the 1920 crop, it will be found that the shrinkage is a great deal heavier. That is the result of the food control. They cannot deny that that control has reduced the acreage, and if that is so, as I profoundly believe it is, it ought not to be continued, as it is a danger to the country, and it will be the moans of increasing the price of wheat in the future and the price of the food of the people. They came along and interfered with beef, and since then there has been no fattening of beef. Look at the return of bullocks that went into the markets last year. There were thousands and thousands less than the year before. Take sheep. Sheep are two millions less, as a direct result of the control of the Department of the hon Gentleman who has just spoken. I was, at one time, a trader in the market, and I think any manufacturer who had to sell under such conditions would not continue to manufacture anything. Two traders were appointed, the one a farmer and the other a butcher, to re-present the meat trade and to grade the cattle in the first and second grades.
According to their decision the bullocks were sold at a certain price. What happened? If they were graded too high there was an outcry from the butcher and a letter from the Live Stock Commission telling us of the mistake. We had letters from the Live Stock Commissioner who, by-the-by, was a professor of languages— [An HON. MEMBER:" Appointed by the Food Controller!"]—saying that we ought to be more careful in our grading in the future. If we under-graded the animals we never heard of it. The same with sheep. If a mistake was made we got another letter from the Live Stock Minister appointed by the Hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "What languages?"]—I do not know, but he had very good English, much better than mine! It is only fair to say that the butchers' representative was always able to have his weights checked, but the farmer's representative, when under-grading took place, never had the weights checked, and the result was that most of the cattle were undergraded. I would not put up with it, and sold the lot. Other farmers did the same.
A similar story applies to the pigs. We were urged to feed all the pigs we possibly could, to put up all the sties we could, to put pigs everywhere, and then when we got all that done they said; "You must not feed them." That was the way the farmers were encouraged to make pork I Let us come to potatoes. The hon. Gentleman tried to make out that it was the control of potatoes that produced abundance. That may be true. Food control produced an abundance of potatoes in 1918, but it was the breach of faith in 1919 that produced the scarcity and high prices we have at present. Potatoe growers were asked to grow a certain quantity of potatoes. I was astonished when my hon. Friend said he had had no complaints. If he will refresh his memory he will find he had complaints of the way in which the potato growers had been left by his Department. After they had grown the potatoes and after the potatoes had been accepted by his Department they were left on the hands of the growers to suffer what loss there might be.
Perhaps I have made out a case briefly, and I do not want to go into detail, but the Food Controller has failed in everything he has touched in the past, and
I do not think this House ought to allow the control to continue a day longer. As farmers we do not ask nor do we suggest, that if prices soar, as the hon. Member for Holland with Boston suggested, that nothing should be done. We do not ask for undue profits. We do ask that our potatoes should be allowed a market so that we can pay our workmen as good wages as is paid in other industries. We can only do that if we are allowed to sell our stuff at the proper price. If our produce is kept down too low it is impossible to pay the wages we wish to pay our men, and so prevent them being unemployed. I am anxious that the agricultural labourer should be paid as good a wage as other skilled men, because he is a skilled man. Without fear of contradiction I say that the men employed on our farms—I can speak of my own farm—are as skilled as on any railway in the country. I have men driving my ploughing and traction engines just as skilled men, and worth as much, as men driving locomotives. My men who work the machines are certainly as good and skilled as any railway worker, and if men in other trades are receiving high wages, and charging high prices to agricultural labourers, the industry of agriculture should be put into such a position that they can afford to pay their men wages somewhere near those paid in other industries, and only in that way can we bring men back to the countryside, and create that bright and glorious England of which we have heard so much.

Mr. HAYDAY: I have listened to the eloquent appeals made on behalf of the agricultural interest, and perhaps it is as well that one who can speak from the point of view of town life, and represents the consuming interest, should intervene in a Debate when the interests of agriculture are appealing for the removal of just that one safeguard that stands between the consumer and the farmer. It is generally thought throughout the country, and I believe it, that the farmers have been amongst the best and most protected persons in the whole country during the past three or four years. What are the reasons advanced for the removal of control? There are two that I can single out. One is an appeal that if you release control it will enable the farmers to pay better wages. The other is that if you will release control they will be able to
charge the market price of the commodity which they produce.
First, take the question of the market price, and I hope that the representative of the Government who will reply to this Debate will inform the House whether the statement I am about to make is correct' or not. The hon. and gallant Member who preceded the last speaker spoke of the difference between wheat and barley growing, and he said that it did not pay on the Government prices to grow wheat, and consequently they were now proceeding to grow barley. I would like to know whether it is not a fact that barley was decontrolled some time ago, and since then the price of barley went up alarmingly, and the farmers are now diverting their energies from growing wheat into growing barley, because of the high prices they can charge for barley in consequence of it being decontrolled. If that then is the reason why other commodities produced by the farming community of the country are to be de-controlled, all I can say is, "Lord help the consumer in the towns !" for prices will go up alarmingly, and you will have that followed by continued demands for increases in wages to meet the rising cost of living. The agricultural interest will be one contributing element towards the increase of such an agitation, because they desire to break away from Government control. I would rather urge, as I did the other night in this House, that we want more effective control. The complaints that have been made against the Department of the Food Controller seem to have been that he has not a set policy; that his has been a vacillating policy and not fixed. I hope we will think very seriously before decontrolling the whole of the agricultural produce of this rountry. We have had examples of the mischief; we were promised during the milk agitation that if milk were decontrolled prices Would fall very rapidly. It is true they have fallen, but they have not fallen 50 per cent. of the amount it was promised they would fall if only milk were decontrolled. The fall in prices in this particular instance was a consequence of the mildness of the weather, and the surplus that found its way to the market rather than any desire on the part of the farmer. Let me suggest this further point, that since farmers have been able to charge much higher prices for butter, less of the milk has
found its way to the consumer, and more has gone to the manufacture of butter, because there, undoubtedly, it pays them much better. I hope for the sake of the immediate future—hon. Members may smile, but it does not in the least disconcert me, because I have a fixed opinion that the farmers of this country have been amongst the greatest profiteers we have had—I hope, I say, that before any question of decontrol is seriously considered, and in view of the statement made by the Food Controller as to the possible shortage of the potato crop, and the suffering that will be occasioned thereby to workers in the towns, I hope that we shall have a tighter control rather than less control of this nature. All the appeals for decontrol have emanated from those directly interested in the industry. They are asking that they shall be given free play to make their own markets, not to produce more. Their sole desire is to make more profit. They are producing more barley because they are getting a bigger price for it. If they get a free open market to charge more for wheat, they will grow more wheat, and that is the patriotism of the whole fraternity. It is a question of profit all the time. I suggest we should keep control for the protection of the consuming public.

Major WHELER: I think most Members of the House will regret that the last speech was delivered—

Mr. J. JONES: We welcome it.

Major WHELER: The bulk of hon. Members will not do that.

Mr. JONES: Only those who are farmers.

Major WHELER: We do not want a spirit of antagonism created between town and country dwellers, and if people will only examine into the question on a broader basis than did the last speaker, they will realise that, however stiff the control, you cannot make anyone connected with agriculture, be he farmer or labourer, produce an article which it does not pay to produce. In the arguments he adduced at the beginning of his speech he quite forgot that very essential point. Why should a farmer produce anything it does not pay him to produce? He has not answered that question, which
I commend to his favourable consideration before he makes another speech on agricultural matters.
This Debate is one of the most vital we could possibly have on a private Member's Motion, because with it is bound up the future of our wheat growing. The whole agricultural community, not only farmers but labourers, landlords, and everyone connected with the land, were most astonished at the statement in the "Times" on Friday. What struck me more than anything else was the statement at the end, in small print, that "this announcement will probably lead to a large increase of spring-grown wheat." I imagine the paragraph was carefully edited beforehand. To allow a statement of that sort to go out to the agricultural community is the best possible way to make them think the Ministry of Agriculture does not know its duties. I was discussing this with some farmers only on Monday, and they were all astonished at the announcement. One farmer said: "I meant to have grown 80 acres of wheat this year. I have only 16. I shall have none next year if this sort of thing goes on." That is the common feeling of the bulk of our big agriculturists when they see statements such as this. There is a very large amount of land which was ploughed up compulsorily which can only under any circumstances grow a moderate crop of wheat, and every acre of it at present prices is grown at a very heavy loss. I am not thinking of the better quality of land, but of the vast amount of land which probably cannot grow more than 33½ quarters per acre. Does the Board of Agriculture want to keep that land under the plough or not? If it does, it has to alter its methods. If not, it will go back under such bad conditions, because grass seed is unprocurable, that it will be valueless for stock breeding. This is a most vital debate with a view to the future, and with it is bound up the question of unemployment. The prospect for the agricultural labourer is very black indeed. I want to see these men employed, but if we are going to get this sort of announcement there will be more unemployment, and any further increase in wages without some compensation to help us, will only increase it and therefore make the position more difficult. Though I am a strong supporter of the Government, I
shall have to follow my hon. Friend into the Lobby unless we get a satisfactory assurance.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I have listened with very great interest to the speeches this evening, and they have not been altogether kind to the Government. We appear to be a pretty bad lot. I do not know which is the worst, my hon. Friend who represents the Ministry of Food (Mr. McCurdy), or myself, who represents the Ministry of Agriculture. I do not know whether he is regarded as the biggest scoundrel and myself as the biggest fool. I do not know which he prefers to be, and I do not know which I prefer to be. I can assure the House that under the most difficult circumstances arising from the absolute necessity of control during the War, and from the transition period after the War, we have been endeavouring to cope with the situation. Our object is, first of all, to stimulate agriculture by every possible means, and, secondly, to protect the consumer from any undue profiteering. With much that has been said I entirely agree. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the East Grinstead Division (Mr. Cautley) spoke about getting rid of the harassing shackles of control. So far as I am concerned, the sooner we get rid of the harassing shackles of control the better. During the War a certain amount of control was unavoidable, and you cannot remove it all immediately; but I am convinced that we shall never get back to a permanent basis of reasonable prices until we get rid of all these controls and allow the free play of the market once more. The difficulties are great. The public are not always reasonable or logical. This is what happens we have beard instances of it this evening. The public shouts for the decontrol of a particular article; it is decontrolled, the price goes up, and probably will go up temporarily—I believe the temporary rise will lead to further production and will ultimately lead to a permanent fall in price—and then the public, who have been shouting for decontrol, shout for the resumption of control. My hon. Friends who are interested in agriculture are not entirely logical. They ask for decontrol, but there are some things they would very much like to remain controlled. Only yester-
day—which is a rather curious commentary on the Motion we were discussing this evening—an influential deputation from tomato growers in Sussex—

Mr. CAUTLEY: They are not agriculturists.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: They claim to be agriculturists, and they would be very annoyed if you said they were not agriculturists.

Mr. CAUTLEY: Market gardeners!

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We regard horticulture and market gardening as part of agriculture, and I should be very sorry to say that they are not part of agriculture. If you say that, you cut out some of the most intensive cultivation in the country, and you cut out practically the whole of our allotment holders. Only yesterday, from the same county that my hon. and learned Friend represents, a deputation representing tomato growers and the growers of other vegetable produce waited upon my Noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture, and myself, and demanded, in language quite as firm and determined as that used by my hon. and learned Friend to-night, that we should institute a most elaborate control of the tomato trade.

Sir B. STANIER: Tomatoes are not a necessity.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: They regard them equally as much a necessity as wheat. I am only pointing out the inconsistency of some of our agricultural Friends. They now demand decontrol of everything except hops. I know that they use very good reasons why the control of hops should remain. At the same time I do not see how you can object to control on principle if you ask specifically to retain control of a particular product of the soil.

Mr. CAUTLEY: Will you pay compensation for the land that was grubbed up?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We are aware of the difficulty of the hop grower. We know that he was compelled to grub up a large part of his acreage, and thereby destroy a number of valuable plants. We know that a great deal of plant in the way of kilos and wire work was put out of action, and we realise that he has got to be given time during which he can replant his
gardens. We realise also that the cost of replanting has gone up. Therefore, if there is to be decontrol generally, as we hope in the main, some adequate steps will have to be taken to deal with the difficult situation in which the hop grower, in consequence of the action of the Government, finds himself. But, as I am pointing out, this is inconsistent with the general policy of decontrol.
There is another matter. My hon and learned Friend suggests that we should decontrol fertilisers. I do not think that that would be supported by the general opinion of agriculturists throughout the country. At the present moment, the export of things like costly sulphate of ammonia, basic slag, and super-phosphates, is prohibited. Unless that prohibition goes on there would be a large export of these fertilisers, and the result would be to put up the price enormously. If that happened my hon. and learned Friend would be the first to come down to the House and ask us at once to restrict the export of fertilisers, as was done in the past. As regards fertilisers, I think that we shall be compelled to continue control for a period in order that the farmers of the country may obtain them at reasonable prices.
In general, I approve of the policy of decontrol, but I may point out what a very long, long way we have travelled in that direction. Milk, cheese, butter, and all milk products have been decontrolled. Pigs—I believe that my hon. and learned Friend's control undoubtedly has led to a reduction in the number of pigs—are to be decontrolled from the 31st of March this year. Home-grown meat is to be decontrolled from the 4th of July. The English Ministry of Agriculture were in favour of decontrol, and it was supported by the Farmers' Union in this country, the Royal Agricultural Society, and other bodies. Unfortunately, our Scottish and Irish friends took a different view, and it was impossible to decontrol in England and Wales, and retain control in Scotland and Ireland. The whole control is coming off on July 4, and there again we have adopted the policy adumbrated by my hon. Friends. Similarly, oats and barley have been decontrolled for some time. An hon. Member asks: With what result? Undoubtedly, with an admitted rise in
price; but, if you are going to get a permanent reduction in price, you will have to proceed by the method of decontrol.

Mr. HAYDAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what was the price when it was decontrolled and what has been the price since the control has been removed?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot carry all these figures in my head, but if my hon. Friend will put down a question, I shall be very glad to answer it. We have travelled a very long way in the direction desired, and the gravamen of the whole charge against us to-night appears to be that we have not at the moment decontrolled wheat. We are told that we have not stimulated the growth of wheat, because we are keeping the control on when other things are being decontrolled. I agree up to a point. No doubt it is true that so long as you have partial control you must have anomalies, and you must favour one crop at the expense of another. That, no doubt, is an argument in favour of general decontrol, but let us look at the position. My hon. Friend charged us with obtaining our crop under false pretences. I cannot see how he can make out a case in that line. What are the facts? Lord Ernle, who was at that time President of the Board of Agriculture, promised that 76s. should be the price for the 1919 crop.

Mr. CAUTLEY: The minimum price.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No; I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. If he will look, he will find that on November 17th, 1918, I think, the question was asked whether the price paid in 1918 was to be the price in 1919, and the answer was that it was to be "the price," neither minimum nor maximum.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I will read the exact words. The right hon. Member (Mr. G. Lambert) asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state whether the prices paid for controlled cereals harvested in 1919 will be not less than those now current, and the answer was:

"Mr. Prothero: Yes, Sir; the answer is in the affirmative.—[OFFICIAL REPORT; February 14, 1919, Column 516, Vol. 112.]
On the telegrams passed between the English Board of Agriculture and the
Scottish Board of Agriculture. The English Board wired to the Scottish Board:
Prices to be fixed for next year's con-trolled cereals will not be less than those now-current; in other words a minimum is guaranteed.
The Scottish Board sent a telegram asking:
Does statement mean that maximum prices for controlled cereals now current will be guaranteed minimum prices for next year's crops?
and the English Board replied:
Your interpretation of statement as to cereal prices for next year is correct.
They were minimum prices.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, but nothing whatever was said about maximum prices.

Mr. CAUTLEY: What does minimum mean?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I heard it laid down again and again in this House that the prices paid in 1918 were to be the prices in 1919, and the promise has been carried out to the letter. Now I come to 1920. Where is there any breach of promise there? Can any Member say that we ever made any definite promise with regard to 1920? We promised to bring in a Bill in the present Session incorporating the guaranteed minimum prices which applied in the Corn Production Act. We are prepared to bring in that Bill. I hope to bring it in before Easter. That is the sole promise that was made. To say that the 1920 crop was obtained by false pretences is to make a statement that cannot possibly be substantiated.

Mr. TOWNLEY: Did you not promise that we should have a remunerative price for 1920, not less than for 1919?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We did not promise that. We made no promise as to the actual amount, but we did say that, in proposing an Amendment of the Corn Production Act, we would put in a guaranteed minimum price, based on the cost of production to ensure the farmer against loss, and that is precisely what we intend to do. Now I come to 1921. We have stated that, as regards the price for the 1921 crop, we hoped that by that time the policy which my hon. and learned Friend has brought forward will be accom-
plished, that is to say, wheat will have been de-controlled by the autumn of 1921.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Why not for 1920?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: If that is not so, we have promised that the farmer for his 1921 crop shall get the world price, with a top limit, a maximum limit of 100s. As regards 1920, my right hon. and gallant Friend asks, why do we not make that promise? It is an exceedingly difficult thing to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] How on earth shall we ever be able to tell what was grown in 1920 and what was grown in 1921? What is to stop growers holding wheat until the 1920 crop is past? [HON. MEMBERS: "The inspectors!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: We can really have only one speech at a time.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The 1920 crop will be indirectly quite favourably affected. The prospect of a free market at world prices in 1921 will naturally tempt farmers to keep their 1920 wheat in the stack for a longer period than usual. Millers, therefore, will find it necessary to pay more than the present price of 76s. if they wish to obtain their usual supplies in time. It is only fair that they should do this, in view of the greatly increased cost of production. We hope to de-control before the harvest of 1921. If we do not find it possible to do that we shall give to the farmer the world price up to a maximum of 100s. for the 1921 crop, and the 1920 crop will be beneficially affected in the way I have indicated, for undoubtedly millers will have to pay more than otherwise they would pay.

Mr. E. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he reconciles that with his announcement of a free market up to 100s. expressly confined to wheat harvested in 1921?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We say that the farmer for his 1921 crop shall get the world price with a maximum limit of 100s. As regards 1920, they will get the advantage in the manner I have indicated.

Major HOWARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us if the millers will be allowed to give more than 76s. 6d, for the 1920 crop?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, I am informed they will. Let me put this to my hon. Friends. We have generally decontrolled agricultural produce. We have retained merely this partial control in the case of wheat. I ask those hon. Members who represent the agricultural interest, do they really contend that at a time like this the farmer should ask for complete decontrol, and should ask to get the full price that has been paid for wheat landed in this country? The position is that wheat is brought to this country, and is bought at a high price, which includes the cost, freight, and insurance—c.i.f. it is called. A great part of that price is due to the swollen exchanges, and is due also to the cost of freight. While it is only fair that farmers should get a fair price, and a price that would pay for the cost of production, I am sure it is not to the interest of my hon. Friends that they should encourage farmers to be profiteers, and to obtain the whole amount they can, which is due to swollen exchanges and costly freights.

Captain FITZROY: Both the majority and minority reports of the Royal Commission recommended a free market, uncontrolled.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, but may I put another point to the hon. and gallant Member? You ask for a free market, uncontrolled; you ask for an absolute free market as regards the maximum price, but you also ask for a minimum price.

Mr. PRETYMAN: No; we do not want that.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That is quite a new position that has been taken up. We have been asked, over and over again, to guarantee prices. I have heard Debates brought on by my hon. Friends, and especially by the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley), in which they have demanded higher guaranteed prices under the Corn Production Act. Personally, I think we ought to have a higher guaranteed price. I think we ought to have such a guaranteed price as would enable farmers to sow good wheat with the full confidence that they will not make a loss. We propose to do that, but at a time when the agricultural interest is asking for a guaranteed minimum price they cannot refuse to have a maximum price in the interests of the consumer.
Therefore, I confess that I cannot accept this Motion in the wording which is put down. I have said that our policy generally is decontrol. I have pointed out the very long way that we have travelled in the direction of decontrol, and that we are going still further. But, while I want, in every way, to assist the agricultural interest, while I wish to maintain and increase the amount of land in this country under the plough, while I do not want agriculture to drift back into the condition it was in before the War, while I want it to employ as much labour at good wages and reasonable hours as possible, I say that at a moment of transition such as we are in to-day, after this great War, in the interests of the consumer there must be some control over what is the staff of life, our principal agricultural product in this country. I hope it is only temporary; I believe it is only temporary; I hope that farmers will continue to grow wheat; and I think the announcement we have made should stimulate them to do so. But I am bound to say that the Government are compelled, for the time being, to retain this very moderate amount of control. I can only hope that my hon. and learned Friend, realising the very long way that we have travelled on the lines he has, desired, will not persist in this Motion. If he does, much as I dislike voting against those who I know have the interests of agriculture at heart, I shall be bound to resist the Motion.

Mr. ACLAND: I think I, in common with every other Member, except the Parliamentary Secretary, cannot make head or tail of how that figure of 100s. for 1920 is going to affect what wheat is going to be put into the ground in the coming few weeks. Spring wheat does not very much matter, but it would have been a much better thing, and farmers would have felt more confidence in the general good sense, if no mention whatever had been made in that announcement of any idea that it was going to have any effect on the wheat grown this year. One general remark. Listening to this-Debate, many of us must have felt, in these matters about agricultural prices, guarantees, and so on, how rapidly the wheel has been turning round almost a full circle. Here we have persons to-day, who are so admirably fitted to speak for the agricultural industry, practically say-
ing to the Government "Keep off Our industry. That is what we want. We want no sort of control or interference from you. We do not want maximum prices and we are not asking for minimum prices." On the other hand, the Government says, "We cannot do that. We insist on continuing the fixed price, sometimes a maximum and sometimes there may be a guaranteed minimum price, but, at any rate, a fixing of the price or a guarantee of prices in the agricultural industry is a thing which for many years to come the State may find it necessary to do." If we cast our minds back, how different things were. These farmers, or some of them, had really one idea in their minds about national policy so far as agriculture was concerned. It was all a cry that the Government should guarantee a minimum price or put duties on imported corn, or something of that kind. All Governments were just the same, they would not hear of it, and there was no idea that any action of that sort could be taken. We have changed very much.
I feel that this Debate has been carried on very largely in a false atmosphere and under the influence of the bread subsidy. I do not believe that the persons who have spoken so eloquently on behalf of the agricultural industry could really have argued in the same way if they had thought that there would be an entire cessation of the bread subsidy, and if immediately the price that the farmer got for his wheat had been reflected, and was to be reflected from now onwards, in the price that the consumer was to pay for his loaf. If we had in our minds that 70s. per quarter for wheat meant perhaps a ninepenny loaf, and 100s. meant a shilling loaf, and 135s. meant a fifteen-penny loaf, or whatever it may be, I am not sure that we should so boldly ask for an absolutely free market, so that the farmer should get the maximum world price, whatever it might be. It is only because we know that if the farmer got that it would not be at the expense of the consumer, because it is inconceivable that the farmer should get 100s. or 120s. for next harvest if the burden had to go on the consumer. We are arguing in a false atmosphere. We only dare argue that the farmer should get the open world price, because we know that as long as the bread subsidy
is kept on the burden of paying the farmer that price will come out of the pockets of the general taxpayer through the bread subsidy, and not be reflected on the consumer in the price that he will pay for his loaf. I am willing that the local bread subsidy should come off. I do not think these subsidies for special purposes are right, and I think they ought very soon to come off, and hon. Members like the representatives of the agricultural industry opposite should be the first to say, "Well now, if that is so, we cannot let the charge go forth against the British farmer that, owing to the bad exchanges and the necessity of importing from abroad at high prices, he is having to pay a tremendous price for his loaf, and he will be willing to take lower prices than the open market world price. We will be willing that wheat shall be controlled as long as a reasonable price is paid to the farmer for his produce. If that is so, and we are only daring to ask for a free market because the burden will fall on the general taxpayer, is not what the Minister has just said, only reasonable? Is it not going to be necessary in the interests of the taxpayer and the general community, for some years at any rate not, while there is this dislocation in the matter of exchange, to allow either at the expense of the taxpayer or by adding to the price of the loaf, the farmer to get the full advantage of that dislocation of the exchange and the high price of world wheat? I do not think it ought to go out as a result of this Debate that the agricultural industry has asked for the open world price for their wheat, which will be reflected very likely in a 1s. 2d. loaf or a 1s. 3d. loaf to the consumer. If they are not willing that it should be reflected on the consumer, I do not think it is quite honest that they should make the demand at the expense of the taxpayer in the bread subsidy.

Mr. CAUTLEY: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I cannot allow the statement of my right hon. Friend who represents the Ministry of Agriculture to pass as to the wheat harvest in 1920–21, without calling attention to the position in which the Government have placed us.
They have practically stated that farmers are invited to hold their 1920 crop until 1921 in order to obtain 100 shillings in-stead of 76 shillings. Really, I am quite sure that my hon. and gallant Friend and the Government desire to treat the agriculturist and the country fairly. But the position is an absolutely impossible one. It is, in fact, ludicrous. It simply means that the only people who can afford to hold the 1920 wheat and get the 1921 price for it are the richer farmers. All the poorer farmers will have to thresh their wheat in order to meet their outgoings and to pay their wages and so forth, and will have to sell their wheat at a lower price. The position in which he has put himself does definitely commit the Government to give the same price for the 1920 crop that they have promised for the 1921 crop. They have already said that the 1920 crop can get it if it is withheld from the market. Surely that is a condition which is bad for the country, and I suggest to the Government that, having made that concession, they should carry it further and give the same price for both years.

Mr. CAUTLEY: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but MR. SPEAKER withheld his
assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: In regard to the remarks of the last speaker—

Viscount WOLMER: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. T. WILSON: It is suggested that if the control on wheat is removed it will encourage farmers to grow more wheat, and that means that by increasing the growing of wheat at a high price—

Major WHELER: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, that this House do now adjourn."—[Sir R. Sanders.]

Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.